This is topic No antagonist for Ender, no believing my sister... in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003701

---

Posted by Mrs_Smith (Member # 8732) on :
 
At a recent lecture/book signing, (Yes, I got to meet OSC! ) Card said that there was not an antagonist in Ender’s Game. He supported this statement by pointing out that each character, even if they had conflicts with each other, were trying to do what they believed good and/or necessary. He conceded that Bonzo could count as a temporary antagonist, but that even his actions were understandable…

This is all well and good, he wrote the book, and if he wants to say Ender was the antagonist he can…

First of all, what do you think? Is there an antagonist?

Second, my little sister, a freshman in HS attended this lecture with me, and decided to do an English assignment on this book because the assignment seemed childish by requesting the students to identify the major parts, and she wanted to make it interesting by using this comment from Card.
Her teacher told her “Bull Crap, all books have to have an antagonist.” Where upon my sister also conceded Bonzo’s part, and why Card said he didn’t really count. The teacher refused to believe her, leaving both of us very frustrated…

I would love to have OSC email this teacher himself and defend my litte sister!

Any suggestions?

Also, a thing to keep in mind, This teacher is the kind who has no interest in Sci-Fi or Fantasy… She prefers books with shotguns and wild game.. ugh..
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
[shotguns and wild game? like All the Pretty Horses?]

That's a little like saying "All books have to have a theme."

Books need stories. Stories require conflict, which may or may not involve an antagonist.

--j_k
 

---

Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
 
I agree with your little sister's teacher. All books have an antagonist. Now whether or not you can *sympathize* with that antagonist is a whole different story.

I'd like to use my favorite anime as an example. Saiyuki is a story about four misfits who go on a journey to stop the resurrection of an Ox demon. While they encounter all sorts of enemies, the main antagonists are characters you actually like, and feel horrible for when tragedy strikes them. That doesn't make them any less antagonistic; they're foiling the main character's plans, much like Bonzo attempted to do with Ender. The only difference is that the creator of the series gave us the gift of seeing from their perspective.

Or maybe OSC doesn't like using the word "antagonist" because it's synonymous with "bad guy"? I can understand that.

~M
 

---

Posted by Mrs_Smith (Member # 8732) on :
 
let me clarify... the assignment specifically requested Antagonist.
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 

quote:

---

Card said that there was not an antagonist in Ender’s Game. He supported this statement by pointing out that each character, even if they had conflicts with each other, were trying to do what they believed good and/or necessary.

---

Antagonists don't have to be evil. They merely need to oppose the protagonist. Ender's Game has several antagonists.

(Consider the Operative in Serenity, a movie Card recently really enjoyed. The Operative is trying to do what he believes is good and/or necessary -- but is clearly an antagonist.)
 

---

Posted by Mrs_Smith (Member # 8732) on :
 
More background info... explanation on why I'm frustrated ...

I feel it is a little silly for this teacher to be arguing with a Double Nebula and Hugo award winning Author, especially when it is about his own book...
So either she's calling Card a liar, or my sister... and it seems to be my sister she's targeting.

Anyone know OSC's Email address?
 

---

Posted by Mrs_Smith (Member # 8732) on :
 
Ok, Chirsty, I understand what youre saying, but CARD himself said that there wasn't any... I understand the point of arguing it... but this teacher is just calling SOMEONE a liar...

And if a writer chooses to write a book without an antagonist, is it not possible to achieve it? And actually have a story, obviously.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Did your sister say "there is no antagonist" or "the Author says there is no antagonist"?

Because the second isn't even arguable, right? It's a factual statement not open to dispute.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Anywhere on this site you can email a mod or fill out a comment form will eventually get to OSC, his wife, or Kathleen (his assistant).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

And if a writer chooses to write a book without an antagonist, is it not possible to achieve it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidGill:
Graff is the antagonist. He actively opposes Ender. Most of the hurdles Ender faces in EG are because of Graff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidGill:
Antagonist means to move against. It doesn't mean not being nice or not caring for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidGill:

If we're speaking in terms of lit theory here, then the antagonist is the person whose actions cause a change in the protagnoist's actions. Graff certainly did change Ender's actions.

---

Given this definition, I can agree that Graff is the antagonist. That said, I'm not so sure that I can accept that definition. Every definition that I've seen of the word also indicates opposition or obstruction. I'm not really sure that I view Graff's actions in that way.

I suppose it depends on what viewpoint we are taking. From Ender's view, he would certainly be considered an antagonist, and I believe that Ender did view him in this way. However, from the more detached view that we have as a reader, I'm not 100% sure that I would view him as an antagonist.
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
No one individual is the antagonist in Ender's Game. The true antagonist is humanity's need to survive at all costs.
 

---

Posted by Mrs_Smith (Member # 8732) on :
 
Thanks for all your comments, I will try the help desk KaCard, thanks.
and Survivor, I agree with you my sister and I agreed that Human nature might be considered an antagonist if the teacher would count that... but she didnt like that answer either.
:shrug:

Thanks for all the thoughts!

Mrs. Smith
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
I would agree with the idea that Graff is an antagonist in Ender's Game, but I think that the Buggers are the main antagonist.

It is the Buggers who scoured Earth in an earlier invasion, and it is the Buggers who are the purpose for Battle School, for Graff's cruelties, even for the creation of the Hegemony. Until the end of the novel, everybody is focused on defeating the Buggers.

Now, we learn at the end of the novel that the Buggers weren't quite the bad guys that they were thought to be, and that the triumph over the antagonist is one of the greatest tragedies, but as one can't really factor in the end of the novel until one reaches it, the Buggers remain the antagonist.

Now if I was a literary postmodernist, I would argue that the real antagonist is the oppressive capitalist humans and their terrible habits of wiping out peaceful, law-abiding collectivist societies which show that inequality is enshrined by violence in the human soul, and thus Card deftly shows how we must revolt, overthrow the corrupt government of Amerika and bring about a communist utopia so that when we really do run into the Buggers, we will be full of peace and love, we will have eradicated war, and we will dance with the Buggers throughout the stars throwing flowers and smoking pot. But I'm not a postmodernist, I only mock them.
 

---

Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
 
Out of wikipedia:

"The protagonist is often faced with a "foil"; that is, a character known as the antagonist who most represents or creates obstacles that the protagonist must overcome."

That's Graff, neh?

"That said, I'm not so sure that I can accept that definition."

It's a standard use of the term. The antagonist creates obstacles that the protagonist must overcome. In overcoming the obstacles, the protagonist changes. In complex novels it is more difficult to clearly define roles.

The buggers are the enemy, not the antagonists. Their actions do not change Ender's character.

[ October 14, 2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: DavidGill ]
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Ah, but they are the ones sending him all those weird dreams when he's in Command School. And he's fighting all those battles against them to the point that he starts breaking down. So they do affect his character.

A "foil" isn't really an antagonist, the foil only serves as an object on which the character demonstrates existing attributes. Not just the protagonist either, though usually that is the character that you would develop by using a foil. An antagonist can also be a foil (and often is), but they are not identical terms.
 

---

Posted by Mrs_Smith (Member # 8732) on :
 
But if Gaff could be thought of as an antagonist, is he more so than Bonzo? But Bonzo is so small a part he really seems just more of a bad guy than an antagonist... he was only able to harm and threaten Ender because Gaff (and the other teachers) allowed it, so by not "protecting" ender Gaff remains the closest antagonist...
But again...
Gaff was trying to do what was best for Ender...
and since the book was written in 3rd person, we as the reader are aware of his true intentions, so he doesnt really seem the antagonist.

How about the later books... Speaker, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind...
the bad piggies in one part, I suppose... Definently the Government of the 100 Worlds, but again, as OSC pointed out at the lecture... All these charicters were trying to do good things, and since the 3rd person point of view allows us to see this, are they antagonists?
 

---

Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
 
If Ender just wanted to be left alone(which seemed to be his goal throughout the book besides knowing that the buggers needed to be beaten) then Graff was the antagonist because if there's one thing Graff didn't let ender be, it was alone.
 

---

Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
 
Sorry mariann, but you are wrong. I could write 10 million books without anatagonists. I'd name them 'My Little Pony' 1-10 mil. Or other variations


I'd have to agree with celebrindal however, even though I didn't see that post until while I was about to type about this schpiel about graff and his cronies being the only possible 'true' antagonist.

Now, if the book was more like the short story, Mazer's part could have been seen as an antagonist. The part about thier brawl's definantly would have fit the bill, even though he was supposedly 'teaching' him
 

---

Posted by TheClone (Member # 6141) on :
 
1. An antagonist does not have to be evil, he/it simply has to act against the interests of the protagonist.

2. I suppose you could argue that you could write a story without an antagonist, but if that were the case, then the story should have no conflict (and thus rather bornig). Ender's Game certainly does.

3. An antagonist and protagonist can be the same person. Take the following scenario: (And I've stolen this example from here as I couldn't think of a decent one of my own.) Character A wants to ask Character B out. Character B wants to be asked out by Character A. However, Character A doesn't know that Character B wants that, and his fear of rejection stops him from asking. He has just acted as his own antagonist.

4. I believe that throughout the majority of Ender's Game, the only constant antagonist that we see is Ender's fear of becoming Peter. Peter isn't actually doing anything to confront Ender through the majority of the story, however Ender's fear of Peter, or being what Peter is/was controls all of his actions to a point.
 

---

Posted by Lucky_Sean (Member # 6223) on :
 
An antagonist does not have to be existant in a book - people will always find and create temporary antagonists be it the teachers, bonzo, or the buggers - people will mentally create these because they feel they need to shift blame. However most books follow patterns which Im sure are all taught.

Man VS Nature
Man VS Man
Man VS Self
Man VS Abstract

There are a few more catagories that can be considered but generally these are the conflicts that are common. If a story HAD to have a antagonist then what of nature stories? Is the weather considered an antagonist? I agree with the idea that one can be both the protagonist and the antagonist in the case of internal struggle. However is this the case in Enders Game? Not once is his internal struggle one that creates self destruction - Now in Enders Shadow Bean is a temporary antagonist for himself because of his self-destructive thought process but that changes.

I will say that there can be thought to be antagonists such as Graff ect. However the core struggle is more abstract - it is Ender against society. To quote "A person is free until Humanity needs them"

Now when thinking of antagonism within the story ask yourself - What is the significance of Enders landside leave?
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
I submit that it isn't just society, it is a fundamental drive of the human race, present across all societies, even those that consciously reject that drive. Which is why the home leave, isolated on a lake with little involvement of society, is such a powerful weapon against Ender. In the end it comes down to the plea of his sister that he save her, forget about something abstract like "the human race".
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Mrs. Smith, your sister's teacher is simply wrong - and arrogant about it as well. "Antagonist" has a specific meaning in literature, and the only way to say that every story has to have an antagonist is to redefine antagonist until it means nothing (or everything).

But when you run into a teacher like that, you just spout back to them what they want to hear, get a grade, and move on. You don't have to BELIEVE him (or her).

The belief that a story must have an antagonist is usually a recipe for a writer to turn the story over to the bad guy, by making the antagonist the motive force for the action of the story. Whereas people like me, who try to write stories about good people doing good, will focus on the protagonist in a series of struggles - with antagonists (sometimes) and other obstacles, including at times the choice between two good but mutually exclusive actions. To take a complex story like that and try to reduce it to the protagonist/antagonist model is childish and meaningless. This teacher has a procrustean bed and he's going to make EVERY story fit it or cut it down or stretch it until it does ...

Or else (the simplest course) declare it a 'bad' story and therefore it's ok that it doesn't fit his "perfect" model of literature.

Such nonsense. Stories are ordered presentations of causally related events, period. They have an antagonist when they do, and don't when they don't. It has nothing to do with whether it's good or correct or anything else. If you were writing the life of Napoleon as fiction, who would the antagonist be? When Napoleon started, Wellington was off in India. So doesn't Napoleon's story start till Wellington enters the picture? Or could you begin in Napoleon's childhood? Or his first rise to prominence as a young artillery officer? What kind of idiot would require that you can't begin his story till you have "the" antagonist present? Silliness.

Chances are, however, that the teacher was really asserting his contempt for and superiority to a sci-fi writer - because that was the attitude he was taught to have in college by teachers who found it easier to dismiss sci-fi than deal with it, since it doesn't fit well within ANY of their literary paradigms, which were invented to explain why Modernism was the best literature ever. It wasn't, and even if it was, we've had a couple of literary revolutions since then - but most college English professors largely failed to notice it. they have their "true gospel" and refuse to see anything else ... and that's what they teach the kids who go out and become high school teachers.

Your sister has learned something very valuable - but it has nothing to do with whether a story has to have an antagonist. It has a lot to do with the fact that somebody can have a college degree and still remain profoundly, deliberately ignorant and unteachable.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Graff as antagonist: I don't think so. Graff is in fact the protagonist of his own story, and ultimately he and Ender share goals. Ender even accepts the burden of Graff's training, most of the time, even when he's angry or hurt or exhausted or puzzled by it. Ender could have done what Dink did, and refused to play.

But they are no more antagonists in the classic sense of the term than are the two stars in a buddy movie. Is Eddie Murphy the "antagonist" of Nick Nolte in "48Hours"? They oppose each other at first, sustain each other at the end; but the bad guy they fight at the end isn't the antagonist either (again in the classical sense), he's more the "maguffin" - the goal they both struggle for but which does not actually provide the important element of the story, which is the development of love and trust between unlike persons.

Isn't that what happens with Graff and Ender? Ender and Maser? Opposition leading to cooperation and trust? It's all very complicated.

Let's face it. Greek theatre is long behind us. We tell FAR more complicated stories now (and so did the Greeks, as Euripides proved). Models based on theories that even the Greeks ignored should hardly be causing teachers to treat students today dismissively for declaring the obvious: That those models don't fit much of anything.
 

---

Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
 
Hah, ironic, I was going to make a post last night about how I hated the CANON of literature that is tuaght in high school english classes. One the stories are very bland and predictable, and two they all fit perfectly in the models we are supposed to use to "analyze" them with. Trying to analyze all worthy literature with the tools given in high school english classes is like trying to write every essay, paper, document in your life with the 5 paragraph essay format that is shoved down 7th graders throats in North Carolina. So many people I knew had thier writing ability stunted for a long time following 7th grade because we had only been taught how to layout and write papers in the 5 paragraph format used in the state writing tests, not in any general forms.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
When I read Ender's Game, the main antagonist was Graff and the governing adults. There were a series of opponents that Ender faced in direct conflict (from Stilson to Bonzo to the Buggers) but each of these were in a sense pawns of the larger game being played by Graff - a game that Ender wanted to escape. That's the main conflict Ender faces, between himself and Graff, and it rises steady as Ender is being challenged more and more in battle school, until ultimately he breaks down. Then, at the lake, part of Ender decides to go along with Graff's game, even as some part of him wants to end it and stay on Earth. This does not make Graff and the adults any less antagonists, but rather it transforms the conflict between them and Ender into something internal, going on within Ender as much as between Ender and Graff (and later Maser). That's still the main conflict though because, while the bugger war is going on for everyone else, we are still seeing through Ender's eyes. Ender sees himself in conflict with the adults, not the buggers, up until the very end when he realizes (in tragic fashion) that he wasn't fighting the game he thought he was.

In this fashion, I also think the main theme of Ender's Game is education - because this is the same sort of protagonist-antagonist relationship that I think kids (somewhat falsely) assume they are in with adults. They are assigned chores or homework or whatnot, and see these as a sort of game with adults, only to discover in the end that they were very much on the same side as the adults all along, even if those adults were manipulating the whole time. Rather than a bugger war, though, they face life.

I certainly did not read this element of the story as a maguffin. This, as I read it, was the most important element of the story - the conflict between Ender and the adult system manipulating him. The bugger war, the battle school games, the bullies... these were all the maguffins and/or other side elements, contributing to the larger struggle. Of course, I've never known a great book that couldn't be read more than one way. It's entirely possible, maybe probable, that my view of the antagonist says more about me than it does about the book.

quote:

---

Graff as antagonist: I don't think so. Graff is in fact the protagonist of his own story, and ultimately he and Ender share goals. Ender even accepts the burden of Graff's training, most of the time, even when he's angry or hurt or exhausted or puzzled by it. Ender could have done what Dink did, and refused to play.

---

quote:

---

Why hasn't anyone picked Peter as the antagonist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Why hasn't anyone picked Peter as the antagonist?

---

Because nothing that Peter does has any direct effect on Ender anymore once he leaves Earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
If you were writing the life of Napoleon as fiction, who would the antagonist be? When Napoleon started, Wellington was off in India. So doesn't Napoleon's story start till Wellington enters the picture? Or could you begin in Napoleon's childhood? Or his first rise to prominence as a young artillery officer? What kind of idiot would require that you can't begin his story till you have "the" antagonist present? Silliness.

---

One other corollary question. If it is conceded that Wellington would be considered an antagonist in a story of Napoleon, does that mean that his motives are less understandable and/or more purely evil from his point of view than Bonzo's or Graff's?

I'm so confused.
 

---

Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
 
If I wanted, I could point out that Ender's Game roughly follows the 3-act structure (Act I pre-battle school, Act II, battle school, Act III on the asteroid), but I won't. <wink, wink>

I could also point out that New Criticism, which helped create the labels of protag and antag, ingores the author's intent, but I won't. <nudge, nudge>

I will point out, though, that Lucifer is often considered the protagonist of "Paradise Lost." Protagonist/antagonist is not necessarily equated with good/evil.

The upstart is that this protag/antag talk is literary criticism, a common language for people who write about writing. It's not a writing technique. None of this will make you write a better story.
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
I think that my point is that each reader has to find the meaning of a work of literature individually. That includes identifying the protagonist, the antagonist, and things like that. And those answers will differ from one person to the next.

My other point is that nobody likes Peter, and yet he still doesn't get picked as the antagonist. Okay, so that isn't really a point, it's more of an observation, something I didn't expect.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 

quote:

---

Protagonist/antagonist is not necessarily equated with good/evil.

---

quote:

---

You could translate the first word that comes to my mind meaning 'the antagonist' in the story as 'the main evil'.

---

It seems like, according to my understanding, you're confusing "antagonist" with "villain". A better three-word definition of antagonist, as I understand it, is "provider of conflict." I can see how there may not be anyone in the story who is pure evil, but there are plenty of people who provide Ender (our main character/protagonist) with constant, gripping and intense conflict that he must struggle to overcome. Whether their motives are pure, how similar their goals (immediate and long-term) are to Ender's, or whether the conflict has a positive effect on Ender's life or humanity in general are things that can be debated. But I think it's pretty clear that there's plenty of direct conflict going on throughout the book, these instances of conflict can be traced back to the actions of certain people, and without them, one of the most enthralling books I've ever read would have become interminably tedious.

Without going back to the book, the only scene I can remember off the top of my head in which Ender isn't struggling immediately against another person or creature (or, possibly, computer program) is the scene on the lake with Valentine. That's a good scene, but if the whole book were like that it would have lost the vast majority of its power (IMHO).

That, however, is only according to my understanding.
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
I would agree that EG has no antagonist in this way it is more true to life. It is simply a collection of people interacting with eachother, each with there own personal goals. I mean if u are going to say Graff is the antagonist because he pushes Ender to become the best commander he can be and you say Bonzo is the antagonist because he hates Ender. THan couldn't you say Peter is the antagonist because he is Ender's biggest personal hurtle? Or Petra because she hates Ender for a short time for crushing her in the game? Or maybe his parents for not loving him the way they should just because he is a third. My point is that this book is very true to life in that it has no cut and dry antagonist and protagonist. Sure Ender is the protagonist but if he was the only protagonist then a book like ES would not be possible because there wouldn't be enough character there to make a story out of.
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Well, there was that wasp, the one that Val doesn't mind leaving alone.

No, more seriously, there is an intense conflict between what's best for Ender and what the human race needs from him pervading that scene. Ender and Val are both aware of it, Val's loyalty to Ender vying with her loyalty to her species provides all the action in that scene.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Remember that the discussion was not whether Ender had any enemies, but whether Ender's Game the novel has "an antagonist", using the literary model that has ONE protagonist and ONE antagonist per story. That model fits almost nothing that I write (just a few exceptions) and not much of the rest of world fiction, frankly. It's a poor model, and it's hard to believe anyone is still teaching it.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
"My other point is that nobody likes Peter, and yet he still doesn't get picked as the antagonist."

Sometimes no one likes the protagonist. Think HARRY POTTER 5 (with minor character developement SPOILERS). Stupid Harry acts like such whiny little &#$(% through most of the book. He seriously got on my nerves. But is anyone going to question Harry as the protagonist? He's in the freaking title .

Also, I really like Doc Ock. Just thought I'd say. He's a likable character, both in the sense that he's a "cool villain" and in the sense that the viewers (or at least my) sympathies were with him. I wasn't on his side, but I wanted him to be okay. And I think it's pretty clear that he is the antagonist of Spiderman 2-- he even drives all the plot except for Peter Parker's struggle with his inner demons.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
And yes, Peter's influence on Ender didn't end when Ender went to Battle School, but Peter's actions, once Ender was gone, no longer had a significant effect on any part of Ender's life, except to keep him from returning to Earth, which was in Ender's best interest.

Ender's issues related to Peter have more to do with Ender's reaction to his own actions and self-analysis than feeling that Peter is his "enemy."
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Ender's issues related to Peter have more to do with Ender's reaction to his own actions and self-analysis than feeling that Peter is his "enemy."

---

quote:

---

That model fits almost nothing that I write (just a few exceptions)

---

Exception #1: Treasure Box
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
I still think that questions that touch on the "meaning" of literature shouldn't have neat, unarguable answers.

Of course, that is the way most "education professionals" approach everything, which is why things like Cliff notes exist. It's the ultimate expression of contempt for an author's work, and I know why Card hates it. Even burning or banning a book admits that the text has power. But to gut it and display your own version of its vital parts laid out in a diagram...I don't even think that sort of thing should be done to the bodies of my enemies. And coming from me, that's saying something

My way of taking an original point and arguing it from the text itself got me failing grades in nearly every English class I ever took. So I'm not suggesting a resolution to conflict with the education establishment here. I suppose that I'm suggesting miss Smith feel empowered and liberated from the mindless orthodoxy rather than oppressed.

But to be truly free, you have to go beyond saying that your oppressors are wrong. You have to create a genuine alternative to their narrow dogma. Card does that through his writing, and I can do it just by existing. We all find our own ways.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
...the literary model that has ONE protagonist and ONE antagonist per story.

---

I guess I was looking at the problem too hard. I was thinking about the characters' places in the story, not that type of model. That makes sense. Thanks.

One other question, though, for anyone that wants to enlighten me. In order for a character to be considered an "antagonist", he or she or it must provide the main conflict throughout the entire story. So is there a word for a character that serves that same function over part of the story, or some aspect of the story, like Graff, Bonzo or the buggers? If so, what is that word? If not, why not? Seems like that word would be much more useful than the word "antagonist" if it existed.

And another, more metaphysical question. We've determined that the word "antagonist" isn't of much use, and shouldn't be taught in schools. Is that because it doesn't apply to real stories that frequently, or is it because of something inherently wrong with applying models or blueprints to stories in general? Should the models be updated so that all stories do fit them, or should they just be discarded?

It seems like there's some feeling in this thread that applying models to stories inhibits the creativity of writers and readers. If this is true, should we stop using analytical techniques altogether? And if so, should this be applied to other forms of art? Should visual artists be taught such concepts as complementary colors and perspective? Should musicians be taught modes, chord progressions and time signatures? Or are these false analogies? And if so, what is the difference?

Sorry to be such a fountain of misunderstanding. I hope these questions aren't too irritating and obvious. I'm just honestly confused and this thread has sparked an intense curiosity in me. It's a very interesting sensation to realize that much of what I took for granted is wrong, and I want to know what's right.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
One other question. If we were to modify that literary model in such a way that the role of an antagonist could be shared by more than one character in a story, would it then be fair to say that every story has at least one antagonist? Well, I suppose it could be possible, even in that case, for someone to write an experimental story that was completely free from conflict of any kind. But would it be fair to say in that case that nearly all stories, using such a hypothetical literary model, had an antagonist? Or, to be more specific, could you at least say that Ender's Game, by that definition, has antagonists?

Or am I missing the point again?
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Characters who provide the antagonist function are ... "antagonists." Again, that's a far looser use of the word - anybody who opposes the protagonist. Thus a character who is an antagonist in one sequence might become a friend or sidekick later. This is perfectly all right - a book can have many antagonists, and characters can be antagonists at one point and not at others.

We ALSO (rarely now) use the term in the classical sense of the ONE antagonist. This comes from Greek theatre, where it was a big deal for Aeschylus to introduce a SECOND actor - the antagonist! - to the stage. Before that, there was only one actor and the chorus. Or was it Thespis, and Aeschylus who introduced the third actor? Ah, my theatre history class was many years ago. (Sorry, Dr. Metten.) The point is that when we got that single protagonist, single antagonist model, there weren't a lot of people cluttering up the stage to choose from.

It makes no sense at all to apply this model to contemporary novels, which are loose and flowing, more like life than the formalities of the Greek stage. But ... theatre went through that same dead-end imitative road after Shakespeare, with the insistence on the "unities" and the refusal to believe that any play could be good if it wasn't just like what Aristotle said a play should be.

There are plenty of misapplied models used in the teaching of literature and writing, and it's a shame. There IS no prescription that can never change or cannot be circumvented by a skillful writer. There are rules - but if you know what you're doing, you can play the rules against each other to do whatever you want (or, more importantly, whatever the story needs).

So in contemporary fiction, characters shift roles as needed, and there is no limit to the number of actors. All I ask is that you not have two major characters whose names start with the same letter <grin>.

And yes, I'm aware that Dickens did it all the time. But he didn't have the advantage of Uncle Orson's Writing Class to teach him the RIGHT way to do things <grin>.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

We've determined that the word "antagonist" isn't of much use, and shouldn't be taught in schools. Is that because it doesn't apply to real stories that frequently, or is it because of something inherently wrong with applying models or blueprints to stories in general?

---

We have not determined that the word "antagonist" isn't of much use. Mr. Card argued this, but that doesn't mean we've determined he's right!

I'm not certain how much use the term has for a writer, but as a reader I can say that I have gotten a lot of use out of it. This is because of something Survivor alluded to - the fact that the person we see as the antagonist helps us understand what the story is about to us. And I've noticed that in novels I read, if there is not one or more antagonists that I find memorable, the novels usually falls into one of three categories: (1) a novel in which the conflict that interests me is mostly all internal (and thus has no real antagonist involved), (2) a novel in which the plot/conflict isn't the main reason I enjoy it, or (3) a novel that really doesn't interest me that much. I was looking down a list of 15 of my favorite novels, and 11 of them had antagonists that came to mind instantly when I thought of them. The antagonist is associated with a certain conflict, and if that conflict is of interest to me then generally the antagonist will interest me. Being aware of this fact helps me to understand novels better as a reader, and thus I think it is a useful concept to teach in schools.

It IS just a model though, and like all models it DOES have a problem in that it is only a model. The problem is when you try to suggest it completely describes the story, which a model cannot do. That is why it is a model! The goal of models is to cast light upon certain features of something, to simplify so it certain aspects of it can be understand it better. But, by simplifying you necessarily make the model incomplete. It's like personality tests and people. Supposedly I am an INTP, and I think this can help you understand certain aspects of me. But it would be foolish to try and understand everything I do in terms of my INTP-ness. That's just a model of me, not the my entire self. Similarly, it is foolish to try and understand an entire book through a protagonist-antagonist model.

Another problem all models tend to have with books is the fact that books have no real limitations. Not only can they be written in any way, but they can also be read for any reason. You could write a great book that has no conflict at all, for instance, if there were some other compelling reason to read it. Obviously, that would make a protagonist-antagonist model totally useless for that particular book. Thus, you can't expect to apply any given model to ALL books.

Beyond this, however, I think the protagonist-antagonist model is a good thing to teach in school. It's not going to offer you all the answers for any book, and it's not going to offer you any answers for some books, but it can help you understand some books better in certain ways. That has been true for me. But it should be taught just as model - not as a religion for readers and aspiring writers!
 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
I'm against teaching the "model", except in the sense of pointing out that some people have supported such a limited theory of literature. I'm in favor of both teaching and using the words "protagonist" and "antagonist" in relation to literature. By the way, while an antagonist is usually a person, no reputable dictionary will insist that it is always a person.

I'm in favor of children being taught to think about who they consider the protagonist, the antagonist, and their reasons for thinking that way. I'm against teachers insisting that there is always an antagonist (or even protagonist) in every story, even more so against thinking that it will always be the same characters for every reader, and most of all against teachers that refuse to believe a child who asked the author for the answer (though I think that's cheating, myself, I'd then insist that the reader come up with an different answer and defend it, because hey! It's me ).

But we really can't do much about that kind of "teacher" unless we totally overhaul the entire education system, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
 

---

Posted by Joey (Member # 8742) on :
 

quote:

---

---

I say: From the defintion I learned from Screenwriting classes you can have more than one antogonist. In fact the

IMO (And OSC can correct me If I am wrong) the main antagonists can be seen as being Graff, Bonzo, The Buggers or Peter depending on the section of the book.

A character himself may be an/the antagonist (Example: If the major conflict of the story is an addiction, the main character can be voth pro/antoginst).

Of course this depends on your definiton.
In film the defintion of pro/antoginsit is taught a bit diffrent. THe Protaganist is often defined as the character with the most change. Plot and story are defined diffrently as well.

To me if I had to pick one antoginst for an assignment it would be a toss up between the Buggers or Graff. Hope that helps !


 

---

Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
 
Huh? Oh, you put the actual quote after the [/quote]. That left it outside the quote box.
 

---

Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 

quote:

---

All I ask is that you not have two major characters whose names start with the same letter <grin>.

And yes, I'm aware that Dickens did it all the time. But he didn't have the advantage of Uncle Orson's Writing Class to teach him the RIGHT way to do things <grin>. [/QB]

---