Antagonist in NoAntagonist

Agreed with Tabs.

Question/food for thought: Can a story in which the protagonist is effectively his own worst enemy qualify as having No Antagonist? Does it make a difference if this character very nearly qualifies as a Villain Protagonist (but with no Hero Antagonist)?

I wouldn't call that situation No Antagonist, no.

Is there a simple reason why it wouldn't count or does it depend on another factor?

No Antagonist is highly contextual, it requires an assessment of the entire work and is not just a one-off moment that is easy to spot. Two works may superficially possess many of the same qualities but one counts as using the trope while the other doesn't. So a theoretical example that's intentionally trying to complicate the definition is more likely just not the trope.

If overall story context is that important for No Antagonist, shouldn't examples require effort posts from now on?

What's an effort post?

I keep looking at the term, but I cannot find it through searching.

How do you gauge effort on a post?

TV Tropes Glossary. Meaning restricting to Complete Monster / Magnificent Bastard style, which is flat no from me, unless Prfnoff means something else.

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 7th 2024 at 11:47:01 AM

Some people seem to treat tropes as if they were completely inflexible, like building-stones cut to a certain size, or elements in an equation that can only mean one thing.

Fiction doesn't work like that. It's not an exact science.

I think the trope application would be a case-by-case one, wouldn't it? An opposing force in one story could be seen as significantly less antagonistic in that story and then a similar character in a similar story could be more so instead?

A Man Vs. Self conflict for example being the center of a story likely means that other characters being antagonistic to the protagonist is just because they themselves are the problem—and yet Hero Antagonist is still a thing obviously. Thoughts? Am I on the right track?

Antagonist is "Opposing Force". That's the definition.

Yeah I know certainly. Anyone but You has an entry because while the main characters—co-leads—are at times being manipulated—or characters around them are trying to, the big conflict really just comes from them having to get over the perceived problems they have with each other. Others trying to get them to get over their issues is more-so in service of being a result of the conflict and opposing force between them—and since they share the role of The Protagonist, it's an inner conflict that they have.

Sparknotes still defines a Self-Conflict as being an Antagonist, but this is not Sparknotes though of course, this is TV Tropes. Thoughts?

1. If other characters are manipulating them, wouldn't those characters count as antagonists?

2. If the two leads are acting against each other, wouldn't they count as each other's antagonist?

I guess things get complicated if you have multiple protagonists or storylines going on at the same time. Someone could be an antagonist to a specific main character, but not to the rest of the cast. The main plot line could involve an inner conflict, but then have a subplot with an antagonist.

As I said about Sparknotes, they always define the specific work's antagonist—even if it's something intangible or theoretical/symbolic. Where the trope here on this site is concerned though from the look of things, it defines itself as a physical opposing force rather than a mental/internal one. That make sense?

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Apr 25th 2024 at 4:14:07 AM

Based on the trope's description and my own thoughts:

1) Antagonism is about opposition and friction between characters. It isn't necessarily about morality. It really doesn't matter if one or more of the characters in opposition are well-intentioned. So I'd remove or clarify the following passage in the trope's description:

or it could arise from tensions that must be resolved between the well-intentioned main characters.

The above passage is confusing as hell, because it comes after a lot of description about the "good guy" of the story not needing to be a real good guy, and the "bad guy" not needing to be a real bad guy.

2) Many stories just don't have a set of clear protagonists and clear antagonists, because the focus is broader or shifting. In this case, the story still does have antagonists, as long as the characters oppose one another, it's just that the characters in the ensemble take turns being protagonists and antagonists.

3) Stories most easily classified as having No Antagonist are the ones where no character really opposes any other character. 127 Hours and Nomadland are clear examples.

4) Dramas or comedies with no direct opposition between characters can be the trickiest of all. Antagonism can take the form of passive-aggression or jerkassery or rivalry, IMO, without the antagonists throwing punches or actively conspiring against the protagonist, it depends on how the jerkassery is presented, how much of an impact it has on the characters, etc. I would say impact and focus are key here. I think many dramas/comedies where the father/husband/wife/sibling/co-worker/frenemy is not "bad", but keeps messing with the protagonist in a passive-agressive way, corrupting, disapproving, manipulating, or standing in the way of the protagonist's dreams actually can act as the antagonist. However, if there are as many scenes where the "not-really-bad-guy" is inert or supportive, that would be a stronger case for No Antagonist, IMO.

Edited by renenarciso2 on Apr 25th 2024 at 5:20:25 AM

A bit of a broad slant then since Antagonist is not simply a person or a villain.