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."
Although it does have more to do with feeling that Peter is his enemy than Peter actually being his enemy.
quote:That model fits almost nothing that I write (just a few exceptions)
posted
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.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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>.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 !
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]
You could have warned Tolkien not to have two major villains named Sauron and Saruman, too...
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
