What Place Antagonists? The Vanishing Sculptor, a CSFF Feature
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 23. 2009 and is filed under Posts by Rebecca Luella Miller,CSFF Blog Tour.
I posted a review of The Vanishing Sculptor, the newest release by Donita Paul, over at A Christian Worldview of Fiction.
My one criticism was that the antagonist shows up late. For a good portion of the story, the main objective of the protagonist is connected to a problem that seems a result of accident. Only toward the latter part of the book does an antagonist surface to thwart the protagonist and her companions from fulfilling their quest.
Even then, the antagonist doesn't seem to be connected to any greater evil. He is simply out to dominate the world for his own aggrandizement. He is prideful and controlling and evil, but he also seems opportunistic. He didn't cause the initial problem—at least not that we can discern from this story—but he saw an opportunity to use these circumstances for his own machinations.
As I was reading The Vanishing Sculptor, I asked a hundred or so pages in, Where's the antagonist? I liked the characters, I knew what they wanted, but the achievement didn't seem like it was going to be hard or that anyone would try to thwart its accomplishment.
For me there was a significant reduction of tension.
Perhaps that's OK for a change. Uniformly, the reviews I've read so far are positive. My own review is positive. I liked the book a lot. But I can't help but wonder, if the antagonist showed up sooner, how would that change things? If there was a greater degree of difficulty early on, how would that alter the tone of the book, the themes, the character development?
In essence, I'm wondering, how important is the antagonist?
Some writing instructors say an author needs to understand what the antagonist wants just as much as what the protagonist wants. Others go a step farther and say the antagonist must have strengths and weaknesses, that no antagonist should be painted as pure evil.
The latter position would seem to undermine the good vs. evil fantasy motif. But doesn't leaving the antagonist out do the same thing? Or downplaying his role by having him come in late?
Which again brings up the question, how important is the antagonist?
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
| Page: 1 of 1 |
-
Wednesday, September 23. 2009
Jill Williamson wrote:
Yeah. Maybe that was the problem. I felt like things were moving along, but there was not conflict except dad flashing in and out and that wasn't strong enough to hook me. Good insight, Becky.
Reply to this -
Thursday, September 24. 2009
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
I really wrestled with this because I thought it was well plotted--more so than any of the DragonKeeper books. I mean, I knew right away what Tipper wanted and she went out to get it. The problems came as a natural outcome to her actions. And yet, I wasn't fully engaged.
It wasn't, like so many books, that I didn't care. I did. I wanted to find out if she would succeed. But that was just it--it was more mental than emotional.
I think the antagonist on stage earlier, or even foreshadowed, would change that.
Becky
Reply to this -
Monday, September 28. 2009
Johne Cook wrote:
I was traveling for a family funeral to New Mexico this past week and had a lot of time to read on the various flights. I read 'The Lions of Al-Rassan' by Guy Gavriel Kay, and was immediately intrigued by how many people were, if not outright antagonists, at least lethal enough to be considered a danger, and therefore interesting.
Two of the more dangerous characters were of a kind, and have already fought together (on the same side) once against apparently overpowering odds. One gets the feeling they will one day, inevitably fight together (against each other) with the results completely unpredictable.
The tension Kay builds with this method is delicious. There has already only been one true antagonist in the traditional sense, and he was dispatched (by a woman with a bow) fairly early on, but because of the culture and the innate danger of the times, anybody can be considered an antagonist of their views disagree (in any degree) with yours. And how many people agree entirely with your own views?
So what we have is a story where there are no antagonists, and all antagonists, depending on your POV and the moment itself. And this book was published in 1995, so the writing methods are not the very latest. Even so, this is a fascinating, bravura performance, and I'm kicking myself for waiting so long to read it.
Reply to this -
Sunday, October 04. 2009
Daniel Smith wrote:
I think that antagonists are terribly important. Regarding my own WIP, I had the antagonist pretty well figured out way before the protagonist started to form. There's a redemptive thread to the story so I think it worked out. Being new to writing it took me over two years to recognize that simple fact, however.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, October 21. 2009
Pam Halter wrote:
I agree the antagonist is important. In my WIP, I had the villainess before I had the heroine. It kind of cheats the reader to keep them in the dark, so I introduce the antagonist in chapter two, although she's hinted at in the prologue.
I write in both POVs of my heroine and antagonist. We all want tension in our stories. So I'm thinking if the reader knows what the antagonist is up to, even though the hero doesn't, that in itself increases the tension and anticipation.
Reply to this -
Wednesday, October 21. 2009
Rebecca LuElla Miller wrote:
Pam, that's interesting. I've wondered why writers put in antagonist POVs.
I can see what John is saying about not having one specific antagonist but everyone is a potential antagonist. That would be innovative and interesting.
And I agree, Daniel, that they are important. I'm just wondering how soon and how much they need to be revealed.
On one hand we have Darth Vader who was such a powerful villain ... for two movies. We saw him, knew his evil, yet he was behind a mask.
Then there is Sauron who is never revealed as a person but shown through those who serve him. He is definitely feared.
I think revealing too much about an antagonist weakens that fear factor, but I may have to explore this subject more.
Becky
Reply to this
| Page: 1 of 1 |