  Drama
This week: Edited by: Elisa the Bunny Stik  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
| Ever read a story or watch a movie in which the antagonist just falls flat? It happens, perhaps more than we care to admit. Why does this happen? Can it be prevented? I'll be taking a look at this cookie cutter antagonist approach and explore why this keeps happening. |
| ASIN: B00KN0JEYA |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 4.99
|
|
While it's hard to imagine a boring protagonist, a smiliar characteristic isn't as hard to find in antagonists. It seems odd that such a thing could happen (as many of us think a good protagonist should be challenged). However, it's all too common. Even with antagonists getting more attention these days (especially the Joker), there are still a lot out there in movies and written word that don't make anywhere near an impact on the audience. This week's issue is going to tackle some of the reasons for that and what can be done in each situation to breathe some life into the characters.
 AUDIENCE-WRITER DISCONNECT
Though a writer's goal is to develop believable characters and an engaging storyline, it doesn't always work out. In some cases, the writer's efforts to connect with the audience fall flat. There are many reasons for this. Sometimes the writer doesn't take time to get to know his antagonist. Other times the characters, plot and setting don't fit together due to an anachronism or other detail that makes the whole story implausible. The most dastardly culprit is when the writer assumes the audience will get a particular antagonist because that character is much like other popular antagonists at the time the story is made available. This happens either due to naivete, laziness or the writer failing to realize what non-writers are going to look for in a story. The last one is probably a surprise to most of you, but think of it this way. If you've been writing a long enough time, you'll be able to see different components in a story as you read or watch something. I confess I'm really bad about this with films (having taken several cinema courses and writing a couple scripts). I will see things in a film most people aren't even going to look for while watching. (And yes, this does make me a killjoy, but I can usually keep quiet about my observations.) While it is less prevalent with books, it still happens. Just ask someone who's read the Twilight series and came out of the experience lamenting the writing. The point is, writers are an anomoly in the audience. If an antagonist is only sufficiently developed (and not well developed), most readers/viewers might not care while writers agonize over the development. Then the writer might think Hey, since the amount of time I put into the antagonist was enough, I can skimp again on the sequel and few people will notice. That mentality is problematic, to say the least. As time goes by, these writers tend to overestimate the audience's collective gullibility. That...does not end well.
PERCEPTION OF EVIL
Sometimes writers forget (or don't know at the outset) that the antagonist doesn't need to be evil. In fact, avoiding using the word evil to describe an antagonist makes those who are truly villanous in nature much more terrifying. Some writers might unintentionally make their characters evil even if means creating abnormal behaviors for the antagonist. Other reasons this can happen is the writer might think it's weird for a story to not have an "evil" character or trying to transplant archetypes from one genre to another. Whatever the case may be, any of these mistakes by a writer can dilute true evility. When that happens, the story will suffer due to a diluted character. Truly evil characters are rare. Even many of Shakespeare's antagonists were merely in a moral gray area. (If you want a truly evil Shakesperian villan, Iago is your best bet.) If you're having trouble determining if your character is really evil, go back to the character sketch. If you haven't already interviewed your antagonist, do it. In the interview, go for questions of a moral/ethical nature and see how (s)he responds. A morally grey character may give an answer that goes, "No, I normally wouldn't rob a bank, but if my wife really neede that kidney transplant, Id do it." A truly evil character would be more succinct in his/her answer. "Yes, I would rob a bank." Also be aware of how you handle the antagonist once you decide (s)he is truly an evil person. Trying to make that person go good can fail just as badly as trying to make a person evil for the sake of having that element in the story. A fair number of Heroes fans complained when the writers experimented with showing a softer side of Sylar. My verdict? I think they approached it in a horrible way, going for romance instead of exploring it through more family-esque relationships (which they did to some extent a few months later). If you are going to work with pure evility in a story, be careful with it, as it's one of the most voliatile character traits out there.
FONDNESS FOR PRE-WRITTEN MATERIAL
Writers of all sorts love to adapt material that has already been written. Don't think that this is only about screenplays. Fanfiction falls into this category as well, and the majority of it is mediocre at best. Don't get me wrong. There are some entertaining stories out there based on movies, TV shows and the like. The problem lies in writers skewering the character. It's one thing to get to know a character of your own creation. Understanding a character written by someone else is a much different task that isn't any easier. On top of that, with fanfiction, writers sometimes throw continuity out the window and morph the characters in their own vision. This can take a lot of joy out of what amounts to a guilty pleasure for most people. It also inhibits writers from being able to fully develop their own antagonists in later stories. If you decide you absolutely cannot resist the idea to write a story based on previously written material, do remember the caveats involved. It's not easy to work with something that already has a well developed set of characters, setting and plotline. Tinkering with any of these will change the temperment of the antagonist in a more noticeable way than with the protagonist. Also beware of the fanbase. Though it's rare to get true constructive feedback, they will talk if your writing is not convincing. No one says anything to your face, though.
SHIFTING ATTITUDES
Of course there's always the question of what we will consider an antagonist. That perception is as fluid as time itself, so shifts in what we see as unacceptable behavior will change how we develop our antagonists. Writers who don't acknowledge this may worsen the disconnect between themselves and the audience I discussed earlier. By acknowledging changes in what is considered acceptable behavior, you can make the story more believable in all respects. Applying this knowledge requires knowing your setting while keeping commonly accepted mores of today in mind. Such a combination of elements might seem tricky, but it's not too difficult if you focus more on your setting. For example, if your story takes place in the 1940s, spend a little time exploring the priorities and mindsets of people living in that time. Once you use those facts to show how the antagonist (doesn't) fit in with the rest of society, modern audiences will understand why (s)he is an antagonist even if his/her actions don't even register as unusual on our radars. This exploration of attitudes can also be done in reverse. Though I imagine there have always been guys in college who rejected taking advantage of drunk ladies, only recently have there been active steps to change that perception. It's a stretch to say that guys who think it's okay to do these things to a woman will be a small minority. However, you can still experiment with such a concept in your story. One day we might look back with dismay at how we flushed money away without a second thought, and perhaps those who indiscriminately spend will be seen as antagonists in the future.
While there are potential pitfalls in creating bland antagonists, there are plenty of ways to avoid them. Nothing beats spending time developing this pivotal character in your story. However, taking a look at past mistakes can help you identify signs of a character development train wreck in your own work. Be prepared for some accidents as you work on your story and make sure you know what not to do the next time.
Until next time,
(sig by panthera) |
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: B07K6Z2ZBF |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 4.99
|
|
Yay, feedback! It's always good to hear from you guys, and I thank you for your comments. Let's dig in!
From flex: A thoughtful insight in to the antagonist. They are as demanding as our protagonists, and your advice to strengthen them is good. I find it at good exercise to forget about my protagonist and his goals, and take the time to examine what my antagonist wants; justification for actions and character authenticity follows naturally. Thank you for the interesting read 
I think some Western cultures get too stuck on protagonists, and a breather can certainly freshen up our writing. Getting to your your antagonist is a win-win situation for the writer and the story itself. If indeed our stories are best when driven by the characters, then all the main characters deserve the full attention of the writer.
From Storm Machine  : Great advice about antagonists! Can't wait to see what you add next time.
Glad you liked it! Hopefully you found my theories interesting as well. I think there could always be more open discussion about antagonists. This is especially true for those of us who struggle to understand why someone might break the law and think (s)he is doing what's right.
From Coolhand  : I really enjoyed this newsleter. You did an excellent job explaining the importance of enlarging our ideas about the antagonist. The portion on developing setting, and its relationship to plot, was extremely insightful and opened my eyes to a world of possibilities. Thanks. The Lion King was a great example.
Thanks, Coolhand! I find that sometimes Disney movies contain some interesting examples of effective writing. As for the setting development, I sometimes think back to the old adage of people being products of their environments. While I think it borders on irresponsible to place the total blame on an environment, I know it's foolish to completely ignore it. And in some cases the environment can greatly influence an antagonist's development.
From StephBee - House Targaryen  : Stik, great examine of antagonists. A good antagonist has be really fleshed out and doing research and background sketches help. Two thumbs up. I just wanted to add - thoughts on cookie cutter antagonists. Why do we encounter them so often? My thoughts: The writers in cinema and film just recycle. I understand there is a staple pool of writers and I submit they are a little out of touch with movie goers. When you get something really original then it works really well, but it's hard to break into the business making something fresh almost unheard of.
Recycling, huh? Those Hollywood hipsters might claim they're doing it to be green.  In all seriousness, they may well be out of touch with movie goers. They're all out of touch with critics, who are also seen as being out of touch with movie goers. It's kind of a vicious cycle. I sometimes wonder if writers stick with these cookie cutter antagonists because they believe the audiences aren't sophisticated enough for something original. You could argue on this site that they are, but we writers are only a small part of the total audience. It is entirely possible that the writers are indeed right about most members of the audience just not being receptive to what we see as truly original antagonists. After all, those who see movies may not be as attentive to details as the reading audience can be.
To conclude this series on antagonists, I will be looking at antagonistic forces that are not a single person or being. Society and nature can be might antagonists, and they deserve some attention. What are your favorite non-being antagonists? Are there certain aspects of these forces that confuse you? Send me your thoughts, for this inquiring Stik wants to know what you think.
And if you happen to miss or misplace a newsletter, feel free to stop by "The Drama Box" [13+]. |
| ASIN: 0910355479 |
|
Amazon's Price: $ 13.99
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
Drama: March 11, 2009 Issue [#2936]
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
