Antagonist vs. Obstacle Character

 Recently a writer asked:

As I strive to understand the main character/obstacle character dynamics, I am left wondering where does the antagonist fit into this new theory of story?

I believe I understand what you are getting at with the obstacle character, but it seems that something is missing…the antagonist!

I see that the selection of antagonist is available as a character type, but I do not see where one plots out the antagonist storyline. Isn’t the Main Character/Protagonist vs Antagonist storyline just as important?

My Reply:

The characters in a story represent the facets of our minds. That’s why we call the structure of a story the Story Mind. Archetypes are our broad personality traits, while the Main Character represents our sense of self. The Obstacle (or Impact) character is that part of ourselves that plays “devil’s advocate” when we are trying to determine if we want to change our minds about a particular issue. If we do, the Main Character is convinced by the Obstacle Character’s argument and changes. If we don’t, the Main Character sticks to the old view and remains steadfast.

Protagonist and Antagonist are two of our personality traits. Protagonist represents our Initiative – our desire to change the status quo. Antagonist represents our Reticence to change, the desire to keep things as they are or return them to the way they were.

Often the character that fulfills the Protagonist function is also the character chosen as the Main Character. So, not only is this character the Prime Mover in the effort to change things by achieving a goal, but he (or she) also represents the audience position in the story. Such a character is the basis for the stereotypical “hero.”

Similarly, the character who functions as the Antagonist is often chosen to also represent the Obstacle Character’s opposing paradigm, world view, or attitude toward the “message issue” of the story. This creates the stereotypical “villain.”

More sophisticated stories split these functions. Sometimes, as in the story To Kill A Mockingbird, they are completely split. In that story, the Protagonist is a small town lawyer (Atticus) whose goal is to free a black man wrongly accused of raping a white girl. But we don’t see the story through his eyes. Rather, we experience the story through the eyes of a child – his young daughter named Scout.

The Antagonist is the father of the girl who was ostensibly raped. He wants justice to take its normal course for that town, which would be a conviction based on race. He wants the status quo. This fellow, Bob Ewell, is opposed to Protagonist Atticus’ goal. So, the plot’s logistics revolve around these two characters.

But Scout, as Main Character, has her devil’s advocate voice that is her obstacle in the passionate story regarding the message issue. The character that has the greatest impact on her worldview, the greatest obstacle to maintaining her preconceptions is Boo Radley. Boo is a mentally challenged man who lives down the street in the basement of his parent’s home. All the kids in the neighborhood, including Scout, know him to be a monstrous “boogey man” who feasts on small children. But that is just a rumor based on fear. In fact, he is quite gentle and protective of the kids who never meet him directly. He looks out for them, but they don’t see it and despise him. Only when he rescues Scout from a vengeful Bob Ewell does the truth of his caring nature come out. Scout must change her mind about Boo.

In this manner, while we root for the virtuous Atticus, we are suckered into being prejudiced ourselves as we identify with Scout and accept her prejudices without any direct evidence or experience of our own. This is clearly a wonderful use of the technique of splitting all four characteristics.

In other stories, the Protagonist character is also the Main Character but the Obstacle Character is the Love Interest and the Antagonist is the rival. Such an arrangement is the classic “dramatic triangle” in which the logistics of the plot regarding the goal are fought out between the Protagonist/Main Character and the Antagonist rival, but the passionate argument regarding changing one’s nature is developed between the Protagonist/Main Character and the Obstacle Character Love Interest.

The film Witness does it a bit differently. The female lead, Rachel is the Love Interest, but also the Main Character. We actually see the story through HER eyes, not through the eyes of John Book (the Harrison Ford part). Rather, Book is the Obstacle Character, the one who tempts Rachel to abandon her Amish traditions and community to run off with him to the land of the “English.”

The corrupt police captain (Book’s boss) is the Antagonist. So, the plot revolves around Book against his boss, and the passionate story about changing one’s mind revolves around Book and Rachel., but it is seen through HER eyes.

So, the Antagonist is quite important in Dramatica, as is the Protagonist, Main and Obstacle characters. What Dramatica brings to this part of story is a clear understanding of how these logistic and passionate attributes of the Story Mind can be distributed in other ways than just as the stereotypical hero and villain.

Dramatica Definition: Perspective

Perspective • [Domain] [Class] • The combination of one of the four viewpoints with one of the four Classes • To complete the creation of one of the four perspectives (or Domains) for any particular story, a viewpoint must be matched to a Class so that the place which the perspective is looking from is defined and the nature of the perspective is defined. The four viewpoints include the Objective Story, the Subjective Story, the Main Character. Universe, Physics, Psychology, and Mind are the four Classes which represent the four broadest classifications of story issues. In every complete story, each viewpoints is assigned one Class, creating four Perspectives. Only by fully exploring all four Perspectives can a Grand Argument Story be fully developed.

From the Dramatica Dictionary

Dramatica Class: The Story Mind

The following is excerpted from a class on story structure presented by co-creator of the Dramatica theory of story, Melanie Anne Phillips, signed on as Dramatica:

Dramatica : First off, let’s separate the Dramatica theory from the Dramatica software. The Dramatica theory has been in development for over 15 years, the software implements the theory. This class focuses on the theory, though I will answer questions about the software you may have. The Dramatica theory is not a theory of screenplay, but a theory of story. As such, it can be used equally well for novels, plays, song ballads AND screenplays.

The central concept of the theory is called The Story Mind. This means that Dramatica sees every complete story as an analogy to a single mind, trying to deal with a particular inequity. In fact, stories are an analogy to the mind’s problem solving process. With me so far?

Dan Steele : yes

RDCvr : Yes

Dramatica : Is this boring, or an okay rate of information for you?

RDCvr : good.

Dan Steele : I can take it in as fast as you wish to deliver it.

Dramatica : Great! Here goes… stop me if you have questions… The theory sees Character, Plot, Theme, and Genre as being the thoughts of the Story Mind, made tangible, so we can look at our own mental processes from the outside, more objectively. Characters are the motivations of this Story Mind. Plot is the problem solving methods the Story Mind uses. Theme is the standard of values the Story Mind uses to determine what is favorable or unfavorable. And Genre describes the nature of the Mind itself: what kind of mind is it?

We think the Story Mind came into being as follows: First of all, no one would ever sit around trying to create an analogy of the mind. Rather, the first stories were simply statements that a particular path led to a particular outcome. In and of itself, this statement (or what Dramatica calls a “tale”) is great for that one particular situation that it describes. But what about extending that?

Suppose we as authors want to say that what happened in our tale was true for all such similar situations? Well, our audience might not buy that kind of blanket statement. They would question us and ask, “what about THIS particular case”, or “what about THAT case”? If we were telling our story “live” in front of the audience, we could counter each rebuttal to our blanket statement one by one. If our argument were well thought out, we would eventually address the concerns of everyone in the audience so that they would buy into what we were saying.

However, when we record our story, either as written words, or a screenplay or book, we are not there to counter the rebuttals to the blanket statements we might make. So, we have to incorporate all possible counters to all possible rebuttals in regard to the point we are making, right in the body of the work itself. This way, any issue anyone in our audience might take with us is covered already and dealt with. This is what makes a story complete: That the central issue of the story is seen from all essential logical and emotional points of view.

When we create a work of that nature, it is not a statement or tale, but a full argument. And that is how Dramatica defines a story. Since all the ways anyone might look at the issue have been incorporated, Since all the ways anyone might look at that particular issue are incorporated, the story actually maps out all the perspectives and considerations ANY mind might take on the issue. This is what creates the analogy of the mind.

Dan Steele : bacl – AOL just booted me off

Dramatica : No problem, Dan! 🙂

Dan Steele : wait

Dramatica : Yes?

Dan Steele : obviously you cannot give in the story all possible outcomes of an event.

Dramatica : True, outcome is the author’s bias on the issue.

Dan Steele : do you perhaps mean that the story maps out the end result of all perspectives?

Dramatica : The author chooses which outcome out of the infinite number will occur in HIS story. But the road that leads to that outcome must be fully described.

Dan Steele : oh, so at the story level all the outcomes exist, but at the presentation level one is selected by the author to be shown.

Dramatica : Absolutely correct. If a path is not taken that is an obvious alternative, the audience will cry, “foul” and you will have a plot hole. In other words, all the possible considerations along this path must be addressed, to make a complete argument. Now, even after making the argument, the audience may discount your concept and reject it out of hand, but they cannot argue with the internal logic of your message or claim that the characters are not consistent.

Okay, that’s the first concept out of several hundred. How we doing?

Dan Steele : okay so far

RDCvr : hanging in

Dan Steele : Obviously you have to condense things a lot, but okay so far.

Dramatica : Alright, lets take this concept of the Story Mind, and see what it does for us as authors. Let’s take this mind and hold it out in front of us. Kind of like a visible mind. We have two views of that mind: One view is from the outside looking in. This is the Objective view of the mind. Its kind of like a general on a hill watching a battle., You care about the outcome and the pain of your troops, but you are not personally involved in the action.

But there is a second view of the Story Mind that we share with the audience. That is the Subjective view. It is as if we take the Story Mind and make it our own, so we think its thoughts and feel its emotions. This is more like the view of the soldier in the trenches. He can’t see the whole battle like the general on the hill, but he is much more personally involved with the guy coming at him with the bayonet! This is the view through the eyes of the Main Character of the story. The audience sees through their eyes and feels through their heart. The other character coming at him, by the way, is what we call the Obstacle Character. Any questions on this part?

RDCvr : I’m okay.

Dan Steele : No,no questions.

From the Dramatica Class Transcripts

Using Forewarnings

Whether or not the characters are aware of them, the audience will need to see forewarnings that indicate the approach of the Consequences. Forewarnings describe the kind of items that can be used to indicate approaching Failure.

One way to bring Forewarnings into your story is to have them be glimpses of one item that gets worse and worse, such as the growing cracks in a dam above the town in which your story takes place.

Another way of bringing in Forewarnings is to use many things of a similar nature. This happens in Ghostbusters where all kinds of paranormal activity increase as Armageddon approaches. The ghosts are causing all many different types of problems, more varied than just cracks in a dam, yet they are all appropriate because they are of a like nature.

Forewarnings do not have to be based on something falling apart. Forewarnings can also be seen as something which grows, such as the slowly growing fire in Towering Inferno.

From the Dramatica Software

“Things” as Characters

 A writer asks:

“My favorite creative writing book is ‘Setting’ by Jack Bickham. Use of setting as primary with characters, plot, theme, mood, etc derived from it and interacting with it seems of particular value in science fiction. Where would Deep Space 9 be without deep space and a space station! Setting is certainly the cauldron of my imagination.

So how can I best approach things this way with Dramatica? Do you have any examples where setting has been created as a character?

Can I have two antagonists, for example, one a person and the other a setting?”

My Reply:

In fact, the Antagonist in a story can be a person, place or thing – any entity that can fulfill the dramatic function of the Antagonist.

First, look at the movie “Jaws.” The Antagonist is the shark. The mayor is the Contagonist.

Next consider the 1950s movie with Spencer Tracy and Robert Wagner called, “The Mountain.” Tracy plays an aging mountain climber whose nemesis is the huge mountain that looms over his home and nearly killed him years ago. He hasn’t climbed since. The mountain claims new victims in a plane crash.

Tracy is the only one qualified to lead an expedition to rescue them. Wagner, his nephew, wants to rob the plane of its valuables and slyly convinces Tracy to lead the expedition on humanitarian grounds. The mountain is the Antagonist and Wagner is the Contagonist.

In the movie, “Aliens” (the second film in the series), the Aliens themselves are the “Group Antagonist” and the Contagonist is Burke, the company man.

In the movie, “The Old Man & the Sea.” Anthony Quinn is the Protagonist, the Great Fish is the Antagonist, and the Sea is the Contagonist.

In a short story called, “The Wind,” which appeared in an anthology released by Alfred Hitchcock, the wind itself it the Antagonist, having sentience and stalking down and eventually killing an explorer who accidentally stumbled upon the knowledge that the winds of the world are alive.

These examples illustrate that all of the dramatic functions (such as Protagonist, Antagonist, and Contagonist) need to be represented, but can easily be carried by a person, place, or thing. Still, there is only one Antagonist, and the other negative force is usually the Contagonist.

There are two exceptions to the “rule” that there should be only one Antagonist. One is when the Antagonist is a group, as in the “Aliens” example above, or with an angry mob or the Empire in Start Wars. The other is when the function of the Antagonist is “handed off” from one player to another when the first player dies or moves out of the plot.

A hand-off is different than a group insofar as the group is fulfilling the same dramatic function at the same time as if it were a single entity, but the hand-off characters fulfill the function in turn, each carrying forward the next part of the job like runners in a relay race.

Although the hand-off is often done with Obstacle characters (i.e. the ghosts in “A Christmas Carol or the argument about the power of the Lost Ark made to Indiana Jones in the first movie by both his boss at the university (Brody) and his companion/protector, Sulla), hand-offs are seldom done with Antagonists for reasons I’ll outline in a moment.

This is because Obstacle characters are each carrying the next part of linear argument regarding value standards and/or worldviews, but the Antagonist represents a consistent force. It is much harder for an audience to shift its feelings from one Antagonist to another, than to “listen” to one character pick up the moral argument from another.

In summary, it is best to have only one Antagonist, but that character can easily be a person, place or thing (including setting).

Melanie Anne Phillips
Co-creator, Dramatica

Dramatica Definition: Permission

Permission • [Variation] • dyn.pr. Deficiency<–>Permission • what is allowed • Permission means Ability limited by restrictions. These constraints may be self imposed or imposed by others. When a Character considers what he can or cannot do, he is not assessing his ability but the limitations to his ability. When one worries about the consequences born of disapproval or self-loathing, one halts for the lack of Permission. The frustration of a character suffering a vice-grip on his ability may eventually erupt in an explosive reaction if the noose gets too tight. • syn. constrained ability, limited capability, restricted capacity, hindered performance, allowed limitations, restrained utility

From the Dramatica Dictionary

Character Motivation Elements in Wizard Of Oz

Character Motivation Elements in The Wizard of Oz

In looking at these patterns, the Passenger Characters in The Wizard of Oz seem very much like the Passenger Characters in Star Wars, with that one notable exception of the “flipping” of Logic and Feeling in relation to Control and Uncontrolled. In other words, the two Characters simply traded places on one Dynamic Pair of Elements in a single Quad. It makes sense that a stereotypical Reason Character would be logical AND controlled, and a stereotypical Emotion Character would be feeling AND uncontrolled. But if you simply flip the Action Characteristics in relation to the Decision Characteristics, far more versatile Characters are created — characters whose approach is no longer in complement to their attitude, but in conflict with it. In a sense, these Characters are made more interesting by creating an inequity within them even as they continue to represent methods of problem solving within the Story Mind.

Looking at the Wizard and the Wicked Witch we see that the other kind of swapping of characteristics also creates much less stereotypical Characters. Rather than a tempter, the Wicked Witch becomes a completely action-oriented pest not only trying to prevent Dorothy from achieving her goal, but hindering her every step on the way as well. The Wizard becomes a purely decision-oriented tempter who represents taking the apparent easy way out while also (through his fearsome reputation, embodiment, and requests) urging Dorothy and her friends to reconsider their decisions. This lack of action characteristics may help explain why the Wizard is so obviously absent during most of the story, although his influence is felt throughout. Obviously, the nature of the combinations of characteristics has a great impact on which decisions and actions the audience will expect and accept from a Character.

From the Dramatica Theory Book