Understanding the Antagonist in my Story

writing
#1

I am a first time Dramatica User. My story is more character-driven plot than plot-driven, but the reason I started with Dramatica was that I wanted to make sure there was enough of a plot to keep it interesting. I have a pretty well-developed set of characters and scenario. After entering all the information into Dramatica on Characters, Storyforming, and Illustrating, I looked over the scene list it generated. I feel like it’s giving my antagonist way too much time in the spotlight. And not nearly enough time to my Guardian (Impact Character) or my Contagonist. Is it possible I have selected the wrong Antagonist?

The Antagonist in my story is a person who has very strong prejudices - the opposite of which I’m trying to dispel. That is why I selected them as the Antagonist. The Guardian (Impact character) is a person from a different culture (the one the Antagonist is prejudiced about). I want this person to have a lot of influence on the story. The Main Character is in search of a relationship with the Contagonist.

1 Like
#2

Hey Leah. Welcome to the boards.

Dramatica is… a lot. So what you’re going to find is that you have to get semi-proficient with a bunch of it before it’s going to start to make sense.

First, I would suggest taking the scene list with a gigantic grain of salt. It’s there as one of millions of possibilities, and while I don’t know this for sure, it probably works to give everything a pre-determined number of scenes, and stories never end up being that rigid. It can’t know what you have in mind, it’s just doing it’s best.

Second, given that Dramatica is a lot, it’s difficult to guide you based on the brief description you gave us. But we can answer the Antagonist question:

  1. What is the Story Goal?
  2. Who is trying to prevent the success of that Goal?

Let’s start there.

2 Likes
#3

Welcome @Leah. You’ll have a lot of fun here. Try what @MWollaeger suggested. He’s a certified pro. He knows his stuff.

#4

They OS Goal is to find common ground between different cultures (it’s lofty, I know). The MC goal is to get to know her biological mother who is living among the opposite culture. The antagonist represents the foster-sister of the MC who has doubts about the MC’s biological mother (contagonist) and definite prejudices about that culture. The IC is a woman from the culture who nurses MC back to health after MC is badly injured. MC doesn’t fully succeed in goal of getting to know her mother, but OS goal is a success.

I started the Level 3 of the Story Guide and I think as I enter in more info, it will sort itself out.

1 Like
#5

You’ve done very well to state the OS Goal (aka Story Goal), the MC’s personal goal, and the Outcome succinctly!

Does this character try to prevent the Story Goal of finding common ground between different cultures?

1 Like
#6

I asked you two questions, and you answered one and did not answer the second, but did answer twelve others. I’m sure you were trying to be helpful, but I’m trying to use on of the beauties of Dramatica: the ability to look at one story point at a time.

So, who is the antagonist you have chosen?

If we are trying to ascertain if you have chosen the antagonist correctly, you can’t say,[quote=“Leah, post:4, topic:1160”]
The antagonist represents the foster-sister of the MC who has doubts about the MC’s biological mother (contagonist) and definite prejudices about that culture.
[/quote]

because you’re begging the question. Just tell me her name.

Question three: what happens that makes the Story Goal a success?

#7

I would say that the foster-sister isn’t consciously trying to prevent the OS Goal, but she is preventing nonetheless, more so than anyone else in the story. She’s kind of a bitch. lol. Opinionated, prudish, prejudiced, etc. She doesn’t “approve” of the MC trying to build a relationship with her biological mother, because she doesn’t approve of the mother (the mother was, after all, unwed when she got pregnant with the MC (the shame!). As far as the OS Goal, she looks down on this other culture (Native American) and sees her own culture (Immigrant/White) as superior. She’s not a full-on white supremacist (like what we are seeing in Charlottesville), but her opinions are clear enough.

#8

lol. Okay, I’ll fill you in on the details, hopefully succinctly…

The overall story throughline is Fixed Attitude.

The MC/Protagonist is Anna. Her goal is to get to know her biological mother. Her throughline is manipulation.
The Antagonist I have chosen is Anna’s foster-sister, Olga. See my reply above for more info on Olga.

The contagonist is Anna’s biological mother, Asbjorg.
The IC/Guardian is Louise, a Native American Woman. Her throughline is activity.

The sidekick function is split between two characters. Anna’s other foster-sister, Helga (who represents faith) and Louise’s granddaughter, Marie (who represents support).
The skeptic is also split between two characters. Anna’s fiancée, Carl (who represents Oppose) and a man named Thomas (who represents Disbelief). Thomas is a soldier stationed at the reservation.

The reason function is Rose, Louise’s daughter.
The Emotion function is Wind-In-Her-Hair, Louise’s very elderly grandmother.

The Main vs. Impact Story Throughline is Situation.

Here’s a brief synopsis:
The story takes place in 1925. Anna (the MC) is ready to get married to Carl after having delayed their marriage for several years to care for her sick foster-mother, while her two foster-sisters Olga and Helga, are away at college. But after the death of her foster-mother, she struggles with issues of identity and family. (there’s a whole backstory on how Anna was conceived and how she ended up with this foster-family) She decides that before the wedding she wants to do this one last thing - to get to know her biological mother, who is working as a housekeeper for the family of the Indian Agent on a reservation. So, she travels to the reservation (mostly by train). Carl, her fiancée, makes the first leg of this journey with her. He is possessive of Anna and eager to get married - he has waited long enough! But he understands that she will not be happy until she has resolved this issue. She meets up with Olga and Helga along the journey. Helga is very supportive, but distracted with her own busy life. Olga, is very protective of Anna and is convinced Anna is going to get hurt. She makes the rest of the journey with Anna and her prejudices are made well known.

Anna meets up with her biological mother, Asbjorg. At this point, I was planning for Olga to make an exit (at least in person). She will still communicate with Anna by letters throughout the story. So, that is why I am struggling with the amount of “screentime” given to the antagonist. Can Olga be the antagonist if she is not there in person?

Anna finds Asbjorg to be distant, reserved, defensive about the choices she has made (thus selecting her as the contagonist). So, she is disappointed in her goal. And her first impression of the Native American people that Asbjorg is living among is not good. But then something happens which changes the story dramatically. Anna gets critically injured. She is brought to the home of Louise, who cares for her. (This brings in the Main vs. Impact Storyline of situation).

Louise is a middle-aged Native American woman who has survived majors traumas typical of the Native Americans in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s. She lives with her elderly grandmother, Wind-In-Her-Hair, who raised her after her parents were killed in the wars. W-I-H-H has a lot of resentment for whites. She doesn’t speak English but she is constantly critical of Anna (in a language Anna doesn’t understand but gets the meaning well enough). Louise understands Anna’s desire to know her family because of having grown up without her own mother, and is very sympathetic to Anna given Anna’s injuries and Louise’s nature to care for others in need.

The last three characters are Rose, Marie, and Thomas. Rose is Louise’s daughter and is less traumatized, you could say. She provides the voice of reason when Anna gets overwhelmed with W-I-H-H’s outbursts. Marie is Rose’s young daughter. She idolizes Anna and provides lots of entertainment and support while Anna is bedridden. Thomas is an officer of the Indian Agency who comes around periodically to check on Anna. He doesn’t have a lot of confidence in Louise as a caregiver, but recognizes that Anna is not in any shape to travel home.

Native American culture (at least Lakota) is very different than European Immigrant in its kinship. For example, the Lakota do not have a word for “aunt.” The word for mother, Ina, refers to both mothers and aunts - and there is no distinction between them in terms of relationship. All the “Ina’s” are equally responsible for the upbringing of a child. The same goes for fathers/uncles. Also, the Lakota have a ceremony called a “Hunka” which is like an adoption ceremony and is quite common. Blood relatives do not mean as much in Lakota culture as they do in European Immigrant culture.

So, to summarize, the overall story goal of bridging between cultures is successful. Anna’s goal of developing a relationship with her mother is not successful, at least not in the terms she hoped for. But through the influence of Louise and the Lakota culture, Anna learns that family is more than just blood, so the “Story Judgement” is good.

1 Like
#9

…Are you kidding me?

#10

Ummm, not sure what you mean…
Is it that bad?

#11

I’m asking for the name of your chosen antagonist and “why success?”

This should require less than 20 words.

#12

OK, Olga is the antagonist. The major characters are “healed” from their earlier prejudices, or are at least moving in that direction.

22 words. I did my best…

#13

What is this, twitter? Am I limited to 120 characters? :wink:

#14

No, I’m just underslept and on the tarmac after taxiing for an hour.

What would Olgas desired outcome have been?

#15

Olga would have preferred to dissuade Anna from visiting her mother. She doesn’t approve of the mother and she is fearful of Native Americans.

#16

Before we continue forward, now that I am off the tarmac, home and relatively well-slept, let’s go back to where this started.

You have entered a lot of information into Dramatica and feel like it’s giving your antagonist too much weight, which lines up with your description that you have a character- and not a plot-driven story.

One of the great things about Dramatica is that you can look at details of your story and have meaningful things to say. You no longer have to approach story with large, holistic, gut feelings to guide you. (Mind you, I’m not suggesting you abandon this approach. You simply no longer have to do it all the time. For sure, Dramatica can become problematic if users start focusing on the trees and not the forest.)

I’m asking pointed questions to try to focus on just one thing, mostly because you asked about it. But also because when you come to a forum and there are lots of helpful people, and the method you are asking about is so vast, you can get spun off into a dizzying number of paths. And each of the paths will be interesting and helpful, so you’ll want to go down them, and you’ll worry that you’re going to miss some helpful tidbit if you don’t.

So that’s my thing with twitter answers. I want you to be able to get something helpful out of being here, and not spend the first year confused and scrambling all over the theory.

Also, many many people show up here and are unclear on what the terminology means, so they ask questions about change, say, and it turns out that they are asking something very different than what the more experienced users are trying to answer.

3 Likes
#17

So, here is the next set of questions.

  1. Does Olga ever say anything like, “don’t go.” That’s fairly antagonistic.
  2. Does anyone else actually fight against peace, like maybe W-I-H-H?
  3. Are you concerned that you don’t have an antagonist around at the climax, to make one final attempt to disrupt harmony?
  4. Do you actually need to know who your antagonist is? What are you going to do with that information?
1 Like
#18

Thanks MWollaeger for the explanation. I thought I’d ponder it for awhile. As far as your questions go:

  1. Yes
  2. No, I think W-I-H-H wants peace more than anything after all she has been through. However, her version of peace would probably be to go back to the old days.
  3. YES - this is my biggest concern. Can Olga continue to be the antagonist if she is not there in person - I thought I’d still bring her in via letters and such, but is that enough? Does she need to come back? That’s an idea worth considering…
  4. Well, yes…I mean, like I said I’m new at this, but isn’t that essential to good storytelling? Given that the whole idea of the story is combatting prejudices, I need a character or characters who exhibit these prejudices to show the audience how silly they can be.
1 Like
#19

Okay, my assessment here is that you know what you’re doing and don’t need to dwell on this.

The Antagonist is an archetypal character who I’m guessing doesn’t exist in pure form in your story. You have Olga saying, “don’t go” and you have WIHH doing something that seems like reconsideration.

Since your story is a character piece, I think most of the interesting stuff is going to come out of her interactions with the Impact Character and their relationship.

As for needing the Antagonist there all the way through, I’m going to reference a movie that I know only kind of well: whiplash. At first blush, and I think to most viewers, the music teacher would seem to be the antagonist. After all, he’s very hard on the drummer and he’s there in the area at the fight to the finish. Yet, he’s actually the Impact Character and the dad is the Antagonist. (He does show up at the end, but in a pretty diminutive role.)

A tricky concept to wrap one’s head around is that the antagonist, when broken down into its constituent parts like Avoid and Reconsider can sometimes seem very different than the Antagonist we all imagine. If I were to show you my beautiful wedding dress choices, a natural assumption would be to think that the Antagonist would hate all the dresses or maybe even the groom. But another way to play it would be to have them want to avoid the conversation all together and try to get me to reconsider if trying on my dresses right after I ate a salty lunch is a good idea. They’d come off more as passive-aggressive than antagonistic. But overall, that’s just fine, especially if me (as the author, not the dress-wearer) didn’t want to make too much hay over “don’t marry that boy!” because I wanted the true conflict to be somewhere else.

I hope that is helpful!

3 Likes
#20

VERY helpful…I’m going to go try on some dresses now after a ham sandwich and potato chips. Makes perfect sense to this girl!

3 Likes