Problematic story ideas

All the writing advice I read online for first-time writers - of which I am still one despite years of fucking around with various plots and ideas I've had - centres around the central premise of "protagonist has goal which is opposed by antagonist" and the story basically progresses through a series of challenges that stymie the protag - I've seen it called the reactive stage as the protag is reacting to the antagonist and basically getting slapped back - until the big climax where the protag overcomes their fears, weaknesses etc, and goes toe-to-toe with the antagonist and either wins the day or dies heroically or both.

Or it's a romance where the protags are beset by hurdles until they finally overcome everything and get together.

However, few of my plots/ideas seem to fit neatly into that format. I tend not to have Big Bad type villains or single definable antagonists. I like putting characters into unfamiliar settings and leaving the conflict internal or environmental, perhaps with a few personality clashes along the way.

Which, I realise, makes it a lot harder on me as a first timer.

Distilled down to a plot skeleton:

My Post-Cyberpunk story, a notable exception in having a Big Bad, is:

When Beatrice's husband, Charlie, goes missing and Beatrice is nearly abducted, she joins forces with a team of bodyguards. But can they locate and rescue Charlie before it's too late?

Then there's my Fantasy Kitchen Sink:

When Owen is entrusted with the task of locating a fallen warrior's only heir, he undertakes a long journey through a hostile world. But can he follow her trail and locate her?

My TEOTWAWKI story is basically "When society and commerce collapses on global scale, a group of families band together. But can they endure the dangers, hardships and privations and build a new life?"

My latest Wi P is:

When Ian, James, Teri and Aubrey find they have been mysteriously abducted and transported to an unfamiliar location, they decide to search for answers to their questions and, perhaps, find a way to return home. But can they overcome the difficulties and dangers of a long overland trek through the wilderness?

The last three are very much devoid of a single Big Bad that is actively opposing the protagonist(s) and the conflict comes mostly from them overcoming their own doubts etc or from the environment or random threats.

Yet somehow, I've got to keep the story going with scenes in which reasonable things happen to threaten their goals and work this up to some sort of a climactic point as the story is resolved.

In my current Wi P, I've got them lacking a lot of stuff that could be useful - they can't just break out the GPS or a handy map or summon assistance by phone or emergency beacon; one character is equipped for a five-day hunting trip with a modest amount of food and ammunition and equipment for one person, another has a modest amount of equipment for survival, another is packed for a holiday and so only has toiletries and spare clothes while the last is only carrying enough for a day's work and a "night out with the girls".

One of the characters has enough "issues" to cause a number of personality clashes with the other characters but, since part of his story arc is becoming less of a dick, that's not going to last - and he's not "the baddie" that's going to cause a "showdown" in the final act.

For the most part their "conflicts" are the lack of food/equipment and the terrain they must negotiate to reach their goal, their own weaknesses and doubts that they must overcome.

Any pointers/tips for keeping this, or any other story without a major antagonist, going in a way that would be interesting to a reader?

I've read that a story alternates between scenes and sequels right up to the climax. It seems that a lot of my ideas for things to write are more sequels than scenes and that my ideas for sequels are really long compared with my scenes.

edited 22nd Sep '13 10:00:12 PM by Wolf1066

My own story lacks proper antagonists and is mostly these five survivors roaming about post nuclear holocaust Russia. I try to keep it interesting by having the 4 older survivors tell stories to the much younger protagonist, who up until recently has been living in a bunker. Sometimes they meet other survivors to trade gear, food and stories with, sometimes a house they loot isn't safe, sometimes they get caught in the nuclear snowstorm, sometimes they encounter unfriendly wildlife and sometimes it's just them being really bored.

Play up character relations, have some nature related obstacles to overcome like unfriendly terrain or weather. Perhaps have them reach a sort of peak at character development and mutual understanding before they reach the end of their journey as a climax, maybe have them run out of food or so on just before they get there. That's about all I can suggest.

The first sequel to my story has two alternating protagonists, where there was one in the first, and most of the main characters don't even find out about the main plot until partway into the book. I am trying to have a reason to reunite the team, but they are pretty flimsy.

'What, that assassin we worked with and your penpal hasn't responded yet? Its not like he was kidnapped by an ancient aquatic empire planning to conquer the surface, and is right now uniting the various races of slaves in rebellion.'

I think your sources of writing advice are overstating the importance of antagonists.

The majority of "writing advice" I've seen seems to be based around it. Jim Butcher's advice is typical of what I've seen elsewhere.

The messages seem to be "if you're a newbie, stick with this formula or no one will touch your work" and "only experienced authors can pull off exceptions".

"There has to be conflict" does not mean "There has to be a single major antagonist who is a sentient being." And as much as I like Jim Butcher's work and as well as it sells, his bald statement that there must be a human(ish) antagonist is utter bullshit.

He writes a particular type of story in a particular style. For his type and style, there needs to be a Big Bad — or at least a Major Antagonist that is a person (or person-ish). But his type and style aren't the only kind that exist, or the only kind that sell.

"A forest fire can't be an antagonist." Well, no, technically he's right, it can't. An antagonist is a character, a person. It can, however be as he says, an adversary. And that can serve the same purpose.

Go read Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. Who's the antagonist? Answer: There isn't one. The sea is the adversary, and it does a damn fine job of causing conflict. Go watch Armageddon. Who's the antagonist? There isn't one, you say? Right again. The adversary is the meteor. And again, it does a damned fine job of causing conflict for the protagonists. Go watch or read The Incredible Journey. It not only doesn't have a human Main Antagonist, it doesn't even have a human POV character. Nature and distance is the adversary.

"You must have a single human(ish) character who is the major antagonist" is (to repeat myself) utter bullshit.

edited 23rd Sep '13 1:44:33 AM by Madrugada

That's pretty much always been my thought, Maddy, but when I look up advice on how to keep the story engaging, most of the advice centres around a human antagonist - be it the Big Bad or a well-meaning relative telling you not to follow your dreams.

Admittedly, Jim Butcher's the only one I've ever heard say that "man vs environment" isn't real "conflict".

I'm thinking weather, terrain (both the difficulty/danger of it and making a bad decision that may result in having to back-track some considerable distance due to sudden and impassible obstructions), predators, difficulties getting food, injuries, disagreements between group members.

Is that going to be enough "conflict" to drive a story?

Again, your sources of advice are overstating the important of antagonists. I can't give you any concrete advice, because personally I've never written any "man versus environment" stories. But it's simply not true that they can't be done by an inexperienced writer.

Cheers for that.

I actually feel more comfortable with "protagonist vs environment" as I've got way more experience with serious cases of that than I do with serious cases of human vs human conflict - school-yard bullies and drunken arseholes aside, I haven't had many scrapes and those I've had were a) few and far between, b) probably not life-threatening (I've been beaten up a few times) and c) when I have avoided being beaten up, it's usually been fairly simple to achieve (defusing the situation, running like fuck or just pure blind luck).

Whereas I can describe a number of occasions where I've been in immediate danger of actually losing my life due to terrain and/or weather.

Handled competently, "protagonist versus the environment" can supply plenty of conflict. So can "protagonist versus Society" (that would be Nineteen Eighty-Four, or Logan's Run, for two.) Or even Protagonist versus Himself (Death of a Salesman, All The Kings Men.)

Most writing advice focuses on the Human(ish) Antagonist/Big Bad, because that what most people who write "advice to writers" write themselves, and it's what most people who read "advice to writers" want to write.

edited 23rd Sep '13 1:47:23 AM by Madrugada

There's certainly plenty of great fiction that doesn't use a personified antagonist and I'd argue that stories without one are capable of creating even more conflict that stories with one. Like with the 1984 example above, an entire social structure built against the protagonist is definitely more compelling and tense than just one guy forcing his views on everyone.

However, I tend to use human antagonists myself because they have advantages that other types of conflicts don't: they're far easier to get your audience to sympathize with and remember, and they also are much more easily used to convey a point or contrast with an ideal that the audience may hold. This is not to say that these things are impossible with other forms of conflict; it's just that putting a face to it goes a long way to getting across what you're trying to do thematically. As such, I don't like writing either my protagonists or antagonists as being "right" or "wrong", purposefully try not to write either of them as villainous and let the audience decide what to believe for themselves.

On the other hand, using a non-human antagonist is a perfect way to explore the character of your protagonists since that's where all the attention will be. You don't have to waste time setting up who your antagonists are or what they're doing, so you can instead jump right into your protagonists' heads. It's a more personal kind of story, especially if you go the Man Vs. Self route (my preferred non-human antagonist conflict). Play the human element up, put the character drama at the forefront and don't forget the other elements to your story and you should be fine. Just try to find that middle ground between making your characters seem like mature adults but making sure you have enough material to reach the length you want. A good way to do that is to avert Epiphany Therapy.

Those are my thoughts anyway. I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but I hope it makes sense.

According to some I've read, the best-received stories - whether they are Man vs Man, Man vs Nature, Man vs Society etc - all have a Man vs Self component. The protagonist(s) must battle their own demons as well as handle whatever other external conflicts are happening.

I've already got plans for that in my story - still trying to find James' Man vs Self arc but I've got one for each of the others.

I tried googling "writing man vs nature" specifically and got fuck all back - mostly lists of "types of conflict" that include it as a type - but I did find a couple of interesting and useful podcasts on paperwings and writing excuses.

As to averting Epiphany Therapy, I'm going to have to work hard to make Aubrey's development avoid that trope, given that his experiences with the group cause him to rethink his sexist/classist/racist/everythingist attitudes - he becomes less of a dick, but I can't go all out and have him 180 from sexism to "girls can do everything" just due to his experiences in the group.

I'm thinking his changes will take time and also will not be "complete" e.g. he becomes less likely to be shocked/surprised by a self-reliant woman but still not classify it as "the norm". Perhaps a shift from "women are only capable of doing domestic chores and having babies" to "yeah, you say you're capable of doing this but I want to see proof of that rather than take your word for it."

edited 23rd Sep '13 2:21:00 PM by Wolf1066