Why a Story Needs a Primary Antagonist (and how to find them)

[Story_Marc]

Most anime ever created doesn't agree with you.

Most of them not only don't have central antagonist, they lack the central conflict as well. This is "miracle" of eastern styled storytelling.

They show you what happens, but not necessarily involve "conflict" or "overcoming challenges" and "defeating main antagonist".

Introduction>Development>Twist>Resolution doesn't follow this logic.

In My Hero Academia, it is...

In the world of superpowers (Introduction) there is a boy without superpowers(Development) who receives the superpower despite he shouldn't have (twist) and becomes a great hero anyway (Resolution) ...

It not only doesn't require conflict, despite ironically t is a shounen anime and has plenty of conflict, and it doesn't require a central antagonist. Not only there isn't one, the antagonists for the individual arcs aren't important to the plot. The first arc seems to be about the meaning of heroism, and defeating the vigilante (Stain) should be the logical end of the story, but neither is actually important (even if the Stain is defeated)

...MHA climaxed with All for One as the final opponent... It's a matter of the actual climax to the entire journey. And the core conflict of the story is Deku's epic transformation into a hero who can save and protect. With All for One as the final test, after hijacking Shigaraki's body.

To note, I don't care if any of those who reject this use it or not. I only care about those who stumble on this and need to hear that part. I feel happy with what I clarified and I can say I used actual examples instead of just abstract assertions without evidence (or assertions that fall apart with any scrutiny.)

To note, at this point, if you just disagree, okay. If you name an actual, completed, pro example that gives me something to work with instead of vague assertions, I can work with it.

If you believe me wrong still, prove me wrong on the page. I shall do the same since I know words like this alone aren't always the most persuasive. I view this more as planting seeds for people's future success.

 

[beast_regards]

...MHA climaxed with All for One as the final opponent... It's a matter of the actual climax to the entire journey. And the core conflict of the story is Deku's epic transformation into a hero who can save and protect. With All for One as the final test, after hijacking Shigaraki's body.

I disagree.

The MHA wasn't the hero's journey, despite having "hero" in the name.

It wasn't Deku's journey to defeat the All For One. It was the recollection of events that transpired after All Might appointed Deku as his successor for seemingly no apparent reason. (well, All Might wasn't that cryptic about it, he thought Deku was good person, but it didn't came with the quest) Deku didn't work hard to achieve it. There wasn't any challenge or struggle in the way, and it wasn't about having the power to defeat All For One. It was about being worthy successor to All Might, which in itself didn't come with the duty to defeat All For One, only with the obligation to be the person All Might wanted him to be. The All For One didn't have to be defeated to resolve the plot. Instead, All Might couldn't be disappointed, and Deku did everything in his power to not disappoint. That's why Stain was more thematic, despite being a weaker villain. No one cared if the world was in danger, if it ever was in danger in the first place. It was about values, about Deku going on the quest to prove he is a worthy successor, while having all the power already. It didn't culminate in All For One defeat. Even the tournament was equally important, because a worthy heir must succeed otherwise ... he isn't worthy.

Your assessment of the primary antagonist applies to the most western fantasy instead.

It applies to Lord of the Rings. It applies to Wheel of Time. It applies to Star Wars.

...but the vast majority of the eastern stories don't approach the conflict this way.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Environmental antagonists still do best with others along the way to do heavy lifting. As I once addressed long ago, and broke down how, because I care about the craft of actually pulling stuff off.

Yes, but the environment is the Primary Antagonist, not the "others along the way" - that was my point.

I never said stories require a villain or a singular “Big Bad.” That’s not the point. What I did say—and what keeps getting missed—is this:


A primary antagonist isn’t always a person. It can be a force, a belief, an institution, or a relationship dynamic. But to create a compelling payoff, that conflict needs:

• Escalation
• Convergence
• Resolution

Maybe your video needs a little reworking then - you and I are pretty much arguing the same point, but I did not realize that until right here, and did listen to the video

---

If people really want to push back, I’d encourage them to look at their own stories and ask:

• What makes the climax satisfying?

Only had two reach the climax so far (Strange Awakening Book 1 and Jack Diamond Book 1)... The primary antagonist in SA was defeated (at least for now). Jack's primary antagonist did not stick around to fight (and won't for a long time... assuming I ever get back to that story).
The others are slowly working there... well, except True Blue which is more like "highlights from a long running comic book series crossed with a TV crime drama" (i.e "Primary Antagonist of the Story Arc" rather than "overall P.A.") so the main villains will be episodic for a while... though Case File two does introduce the ultimate primary antagonist.

And people pointing to anime/manga/comic books/webnovels as a counterexample:
Those are megastructures merging individual "novels" - each novel will usually have a primary antagonist, but the overall story will not, unless the main character merely growing and gathering allies/minions IS the antagonist.
And some of them do rely (as do some of my own) on misdirection or even "evolution" - a character who does not appear for dozens or hundreds of chapters is set up as a mysterious enemy ... only to turn out to be working WITH the MC when they finally appear, hoping to defeat another enemy (and their methods may not be the most ideal ... i.e. in My Vampire System, there are vague hints that an inventor, Richard Eno, is the guy behind everything, and, in a sense he is, but not for sinister reasons - at least not for sinister reasons involving the MC)
In otherwords, you have single arc primary antagonists but not overall P.A.s ... or, if you do, they don't appear for a long time and may even remain hidden until the final confrontation.

So the entire work does not NEED a single antagonist (but that can help), but each distinct arc DOES.
Lord of the Rings you have the Nazgul and the Corruption of the Ring at first. Then you have the Balrog. Then the action splits and Faramir becomes Frodo's PA, while Saruman becomes the PA of the rest of the group.
Gollum becomes a temporary ally, but then the true PA for Frodo while the leader of the Nazgul becomes the PA for the others - and when those are defeated, and Sauron (almost a pseudo primary antagonist) is defeated by the destruction of the One Ring, Saruman and Wormtongue resurface to take over the PA role for a kind of a coda before the series ends.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

Me when clicking the thread: "But what about having multiple antagonists?"
Me at 0:18:

In a more serious note, I very much enjoyed the video. I really liked the "humans are wired to make sense of things through people" part. Personifying a non-physical problem into a physical character is certainly good advice.

I did try to check if these ideas worked in more SoL settings, where the conflicts are far more subtle. Specifically, I tried to analyse who would be the primary antagonist in a hypothetical school-life, SoL, romance novel. On analysis, I got to a split depending on what the author prioritises:

1. Prioritising the school-life over the romance.
In such a case, the stereotypical conflict is probably exams. In which case, this may be embodied by a stern yet morally upright teacher.

2. Prioritising the romance over the school-life.
In such a case, the antagonist appears to be the MC's love interest. If you look at the checklist in 10:14, they do fit every box, after all.

In both cases, I find these wouldn't be considered antagonists from a reader's perspective. However, since I have identified them, I suppose we could consider them as antagonists from a writer's perspective? Is this a reasonable analysis?

 

[Echimera]

I think my main issue is with using the term antagonist. Maybe it's just me, but it implies some form of agency, goals and decision making that puts them in conflict with the protagonist.
People of course, animals, heck even an AI, as bound by its programming as it might be, all can have that.

But I can't bring myself to use the term for an earthquake or a storm. They just are, and the protagonist just happens to be in their path and has to get out. Sure, there are often other characters that stand in the way, but they are not the core conflict.


And of course there are Slice of Life stories that don't have any meaningful opposing force at all. Sometimes it's just fun to follow an interesting cast of characters doing their thing

 

[Story_Marc]

Me when clicking the thread: "But what about having multiple antagonists?"
Me at 0:18:

In a more serious note, I very much enjoyed the video. I really liked the "humans are wired to make sense of things through people" part. Personifying a non-physical problem into a physical character is certainly good advice.

I did try to check if these ideas worked in more SoL settings, where the conflicts are far more subtle. Specifically, I tried to analyse who would be the primary antagonist in a hypothetical school-life, SoL, romance novel. On analysis, I got to a split depending on what the author prioritises:

1. Prioritising the school-life over the romance.
In such a case, the stereotypical conflict is probably exams. In which case, this may be embodied by a stern yet morally upright teacher.

2. Prioritising the romance over the school-life.
In such a case, the antagonist appears to be the MC's love interest. If you look at the checklist in 10:14, they do fit every box, after all.

In both cases, I find these wouldn't be considered antagonists from a reader's perspective. However, since I have identified them, I suppose we could consider them as antagonists from a writer's perspective? Is this a reasonable analysis?

Yes, actually, the love interest IS the antagonist of a romance story. This is something mentioned in a number of writing books on the topic, actually. Since they are the obstacle to the protagonist getting what they want, technically speaking. Which, going from that...

I think my main issue is with using the term antagonist. Maybe it's just me, but it implies some form of agency, goals and decision making that puts them in conflict with the protagonist.
People of course, animals, heck even an AI, as bound by its programming as it might be, all can have that.

But I can't bring myself to use the term for an earthquake or a storm. They just are, and the protagonist just happens to be in their path and has to get out. Sure, there are often other characters that stand in the way, but they are not the core conflict.


And of course there are Slice of Life stories that don't have any meaningful opposing force at all. Sometimes it's just fun to follow an interesting cast of characters doing their thing

That is why the terms "antagonist" and "villain" are different. As I defined in a different way, the antagonist is meaningful resistance to the goal. It's just whoever gets in the way of the protagonist's goal.

For slice of life, can you give me an example of a slice of life story you're thinking of? Like, any specific ones?

And an earthquake or a storm can be it for the reasons I mention in the video I give on how they can be it, though it isn't ideal to use them alone. It works best when in conjunction with other things or creates conditions. In those cases, it depends what the conflict is. For instance, in the Dragon Prince example I use, it works for the core conflict and it's the obstacle for the episode, but it doesn't do things alone. It's why one has to consider context when working on it.

 

[SternenklarenRitter]

We may have a severe case of definition divergence. It looks like several of us have wildly different ideas as to what counts as an antagonist. To my usual understanding of the word, anything that both provides a source of conflict to the MC, and is able to determine a course of action with meaningful consequences in the 'physical world' the story exists in, counts as an antagonist. As I see it, and apparently share opinion with a few other members here, an antagonist needs a certain level of agency within the story. A hostile environment is not an antagonist. It makes for an excellent source of conflict, but it cannot influence the plot. A hostile environment only becomes an inert obstacle for the plot to happen around. I am not trying to assert that my understanding of an antagonist is the only correct one, but before we can have a productive discussion we need to be more clear about which definition we are using.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

And an earthquake or a storm can be it for the reasons I mention in the video I give on how they can be it, though it isn't ideal to use them alone. It works best when in conjunction with other things or creates conditions. In those cases, it depends what the conflict is. For instance, in the Dragon Prince example I use, it works for the core conflict and it's the obstacle for the episode, but it doesn't do things alone. It's why one has to consider context when working on it.

Another good example would be a lot of the better (and some, like Gamera vs. Jiger, worst) ones have a story where human (or, less often, but definitely there, alien) agents are really the primary antagonists, with their leader (be it a bandit, a king from another world, or just a renegade idiot, like Samuel L. Jackson's character in Kong on Skull Island) is the REAL bad guy ... but the audience is there for the giant monster fight, so the kaiju take center stage and the antagonist usually dies by accident during the fight - or has a change of heart and dies redeeming themself somehow. The audience rarely remembers that character, because it FEELS like a "B" plot but really IS the "A" plot.

 

[Danja]

A story doesn't necessarily need an antagonist (Look at Hamlet. He spends most of the play fighting against himself and his one flaw -- his inability to make up his mind).

Or what about MacBeth? He's undone by his lust for power. It consumes everyone around him.

Inserting an antagonist just for the sake of having an antagonist can make for clunky, tortured storytelling.

What about character studies? Think of films by Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson. They capture humanity existing in figurative tide pools.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

A story doesn't necessarily need an antagonist (Look at Hamlet. He spends most of the play fighting against himself and his one flaw -- his inability to make up his mind).

His uncle is the antagonist there - the guy who started the ball rolling by killing his dad, and winds up killing his own champion, himself, and Hamlet as a result.

Or what about MacBeth? He's undone by his lust for power. It consumes everyone around him.

His ambition (and perhaps even more so, his wife's) are, effectively, the antagonist, making them both simultaneously antagonist and protagonist in his story.

Inserting an antagonist just for the sake of having an antagonist can make for clunky, tortured storytelling.

What about character studies? Think of films by Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson. They capture humanity existing in figurative tide pools.

 

[Danja]

uncle is the antagonist there - the guy who started the ball rolling by killing his dad, and winds up killing his own champion, himself, and Hamlet as a result.

It was the best I could remember (I last studied the thing in high school -- a million years ago ).

His ambition (and perhaps even more so, his wife's) are, effectively, the antagonist, making them both simultaneously antagonist and protagonist in his story.

To me, it's much more interesting than a stock mustache-twirling "bad guy".

There are also anti-heroes (Death Wish, Falling Down, American Psycho).

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Maybe a better title for this video would be "How a story can benefit from a Primary Antagonist" given the discussions?