The Ephemeral Antagonist: Conflict in Narrative

The most common narrative conflict we see in fiction today is what is know as Person Vs. Person. You have your protagonist working with/against your antagonist and the two play off one another creating the narrative conflict throughout the arc. This generally ends with one or more deaths/incarcerations what have you.

But there are other forms of narrative conflict that don't involve an antagonist.

There's the old standby Person Vs. Nature, which is generally exemplified by books like Hatchet and short stories like To Start a Fire (which I read in Middle-School and still haunts me to this day). For those of you not familiar with the term. It's generally a protagonist thrown up against the elements. So a blizzard or a scorching desert. It's a person vs. the jaguar stalking them through the night. (Though there are personified examples of person vs. animal where the animal definitely feels like a definitive antagonist).

We also have Person Vs. Self, Person Vs. Society, and others. They important thing is that it's a protagonist thrown up against something/someone. So, to simplify this:

Conflict =  the Protagonist VS. Something/Someone

That's it. That's conflict. Now, the truth is, not all fiction utilizes the antagonist as a person or a beast, or monster. Some fiction works quite well without an antagonist. It utilizes some other sort of conflict to get the job done. 

I tend to steer away from centralized antagonists in my work. Not consciously, mind you. While my stories do tend to have a villain, that character may not actually be the antagonist of the story or they may not have much of a presence within the story. There's nothing precisely wrong with that. There are going to be misdirects, on occasion, when it comes to identifying the root of your story's conflict. 

A trilogy I was working on last year had elements of different narrative conflicts with no unifying antagonist, and I was having some trouble sorting out why, as I'd plotted the damn things. It only later occurred to me while writing book three, that the antagonist had been a steady presence all along. I just hadn't put two and two together. Now, that said, that still wasn't the driving conflict.

The best example of another author who does what I call an "ephemeral antagonist" is JK Rowling with Voldemort. He is a felt presence throughout the series. His agents are everywhere, his name on the lips of those still around convinced he's gone for good. He's a cloud over the proceedings. No one can deny he's the series antagonist, but conflict isn't always driven by his hand directly. It's generally a consequence of his presence, but not necessarily because of direct actions he may have taken. 

I generally feel that antagonists can be the "Man behind the curtain". Pulling strings, always present, but on screen for a short amount of time while still maintaining maximum impact. Because of this, conflict tends to feel more self-driven on the part of the protagonist. You can get away with false leads and even pseudo-antagonists that mask your main villain's purpose. It's not just about conflict driving the story at this point.

We talk about plot driven stories VS. character driven stories frequently, and we should. But you also need to ask yourself, what kind of conflict is driving this story? The underlying thread should remain the same through the story and it should boil down to a single concept.

If I boiled down that trilogy I talked about earlier, it'd be pretty simple. The protagonist really just wants her father to be proud of her. That's her overriding desire, the conflict is that he's dead and that's never going to happen so she keeps striving higher and higher. The other conflicts are secondary to that goal. So the conflict at the center of it, is not with the antagonist really, but with Self. This is a common thing to see within YA narratives really, as they tend to be about Growth regardless of genre. So while you may have these characters going through all of these things, their core conflict is going to be Self and on occasion Society with villains thrown in to give you something to focus rage on.

Figure out what your core conflict is, that thing driving you character forward, and then build your narrative arc from that. This is why many people will tell you to start your story near or at your inciting incident, as this is what the conflict comes from. It's going to inform everything else that happens, and will be reflected in the ending of the book. If you can do that, your resolution is going to feel a lot stronger, more earned.

Don't be afraid of not having an personified antagonist in your story. Not every story is going to have a mustache-twirling villain to focus on. Sometimes, it's just the wind howling outside the window. It's the crushing weight of an immovable force. Conflict is core to narrative. So if you're struggling with your story, go back to the conflict.

Let's Get Tense

So, you know how when you start a story and you pick your POV? You settle comfortably (or realize half-way through draft one that you're in the wrong one) and that is that. Sometimes you might have a multiple POV or alternating POVs.

What about tense? Sure, there's present, past and future tense and they all have their place in writing. I for one, am sick of novels that give me the prologue/intro in past tense and then dunk me into present tense for the rest of the book (especially in first person). The sensation is very similar to being doused in cold water. Shock. It's a difficult tense/POV combo to do well and without it sounding intrusive or repetitive. There are maybe three authors I've read where I didn't even realize they'd done it until it was pointed out.

That's how how well it was done. A POV/tense combo should be a backdrop. It shouldn't get in the way of the story your telling, but be the tapestry into which the story is woven. If it stands out, people are going to notice. This is one of those fundamental issues you'll probably hurdle early on in your writing.

But what about more delicate matters of tense? That's right, I'm going to talk about intentionally switching tense in a story for effect.

I had a writing professor in college who saw that I had done this very thing, noted it and told me to keep doing it. It's something you may have to fight a bit over, and it has to be used sparingly. But tense is something that can really showcase a narrator, other characters, settings, etc.

For Example:

The castle's gloom stretched across the valley. 

The castle's gloom stretches across the valley. 

The castle's gloom will always stretch across the valley. 


So, in past tense this implies that perhaps this gloom is gone. Present tense implies it's a constant, something that is and always will be. Future tense also gives this implication, though using more words and has a bit more clarification for a reader who may be briefly confused by a tense change.

That said, they might not be at all.

This works for character traits as well.


My sister might be the most frustrating person I knew, but I wasn’t about to leave her alone in a graveyard crying.


My sister might be the most frustrating person I know, but I wasn’t about to leave her alone in a graveyard crying.


See that? Knew becomes Know and now the reader gets the feeling that this is state of permanence. It lends something the voice of the character. A bit of world-weariness even. Know has more impact that Knew in this context. Technically, yes, you are switching tense within the sentence, but this is also first person. A narrator's voice may not always be perfectly grammatically correct.


A narrator's voice may not always be perfectly grammatically correct. 

I thought that needed to be repeated. In all, changing tenses is a tool that you can use when shaping your narrative. Use it well, and sparingly, and you can deepen the reader's understanding of your characters, settings, and themes. 

 

Solo VS. Series

I have a brain for sequential fiction. It's my curse. I write a story, and then I see exactly where those characters are going next the minute I write the end. Now, not everyone thinks this way. There's nothing wrong with that. I like a good stand-alone novel. But...I also adore a well written series. It's limits the number of authors I'm exposed to though, I admit it. A series is an investment, you don't want to get three books in and discover the author isn't what you expected.

Or worse, that the a subplot you were invested in doesn't pan out in any way. Or that the ending is awful. It can be utterly disappointing to see a lackluster ending to a series you love.

So as a writer and a reader, I never want my own readers to go through that. I want them to be satisfied at the end of the arc.

You've most likely seen this diagram before.

This is generally referred to as "Freytag's Pyramid" and is the most commonly accepted diagram for a story arc. Any kind of story. Short stories, novellas, novels, etc. Now, with a stand alone novel, this diagram (along with it's variations and genre specific versions) is usually all you need to plot with.

Now this is a trilogy. So you have the individual pyramids inside an arc. This is how your plot details are going to be worked in. Your arc should terminate when the last book does (as illustrated). Every book is going to share in the arc. So no matter how many novels make up the arc, you'll always finish in the same place.

You should also note that the arc is taller than the pyramids. See, only a little bit of information to tease the overall arc should be included in book one. It's a subplot, not the main plot. You need to be focused on the main plot while carefully asking questions that lead into your main arc. Book two will require more of the subplot. You need to make sure that the latter half of this book involves the series arc in a more meaningful way so that it all ties into the final book. The final book won't be be a plot within the series arc, it's going to be the series arc. Sort of in miniature. It'll recall things from each proceeding novel and then pull you into that plot you've been teasing of the past books and bring it to conclusion.

I generally know the finale of the series by the time I've finished the first draft of the first book. It's important to at least have an idea of where you're going. Sure, you can (and there are many an author that has) jump from stand-alone to series after publication.

But if your already thinking about what's going to happen in books two, three and four while writing book one? You might be a sequential author. That's when things like Series Bibles come in handy. There's a lot of organizing, plotting, planning, and timelining that goes into writing a series. It's always better to do that work at the front end, rather than have to go back in later and do it after you've written three novels with no end in sight.

It might seem like a lot of work, but it's definitely worth it. Obviously, there's no iron clad "right way" but I can tell you that this preliminary work makes my life a lot easier.

Show and Tell

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the first piece of writing advice most of us have ever gotten was that grand chestnut, "Show, don't tell." It's repeated in near constant refrain and here's the thing: It's only half-right.

This particular piece of advice crops up for two reasons. One, it's an easy shorthand for describing a pretty common problem and two, it's easy to remember.

But writing is not that simple. The advice is well-intentioned, but it has an inherent flaw. That is, that one is always supposed to show and never tell. And that's simply not true. There is a balancing act between show and tell. Show too much and prose drags, your pacing slows and readers can get...bored. Tell too much and the story move too fast, there's nothing there to stick to the ribs.

You can't take the advice as gospel but merely as a reminder to be more conscious. There is a time for you to show the moonlight streaming through the window and a time for you to say, the moon is full. (80% of the time I see people touting this bit of advice, they use that "moon glinting" quote. Like...all the time.)

 
Different genres have different linguistic styles. Different authors will have different styles within those genres. I write MG differently from YA and Adult and I certainly write historical differently from contemporary.

There's another term you may have heard through the years, purple prose. This is, in my opinion, showing gone wild. It's elaborate, extravagant, over the top. It's taking a page and a half to describe a picnic table before finally telling me that the table is on fire. It's saying a thousand things, burying the really important things in the morass of your descriptions.

When description begins to interfere with pacing, you know there's a problem and when your pacing is moving too quickly, you know you have room for description.

I know that seems ridiculously simplistic, but it is that simple. So here it is again.

If the pace of your story is moving too quickly, you need to add description.

If the pace of your story is moving too slowly, you need to cut description. 

Or, to put it another way.

If the story is moving too fast, stop and show.

If the story is moving too slow, start telling.

That's it. That's the big secret. You know what else can speed up or slow down a story? Dialogue. But it still comes down to how you're writing that dialogue. Is it descriptive or is it pointed? Is it between two people or six? Complex ideas, complex sentences, they slow down the reader. Short sentences are fast.

And it all goes back to show vs. tell. This craft of ours has a thousand nuances. You can learn every rule, every word and piece of punctuation and you still won't have mastered the craft. Because the greater part of mastering this craft is finding your voice. Voice is a mixture of show and tell. It's your personal recipe of mannerisms and broken rules, how you show and how you tell that combines to create your voice.

Finding that balance, that recipe, is hard. It can be even harder when you're being torn in a thousand directions. When you're being told that there is the one true way and your way doesn't match. There is no one true way to write. There are elements. There are rules. And you have to decide if you're going to incorporate them, follow them--or not. Keep writing. Find your own way. Find your way.

Show and tell.

Editing, Feedback and Knowing Your Book

Editors are human beings.

I know, it's a huge shock to us all, but they really are. Something we have to keep in mind going into edit letters, feedback and all of the wonderful things that can come from those things is that editors are human beings. Highly skilled, technically knowledgeable, human beings ready to whip your book into shape.

And sometimes, they are wrong. Now, I don't mean for you to take away from this the idea that you should ignore your editors or that it's all right for you to ignore every piece of feedback that they give you. What I suggest that you do, is talk to them. If there's a piece of feedback that, after you've sit with it, marinated with it, wrestled and worried over (And yes, you do need to let it marinate for a while. Just because you don't initially agree, just because you may feel like you got punched in the gut, doesn't really mean they were wrong), does not make sense, then you need to open up dialogue with your editor.

Perchance you thought you were writing in omniscient third and your editor comes back with edits for close-alternating-third on your entire manuscript...Well, it's time to A, consider that you weren't as effective in your omniscient third as you thought and B, to TALK to your editor.

Feedback is not a one-way-street. It is a dialogue between you and the people you are working with. Moreover, you will find that different publishing houses have different "house styles", and they'll want you to fit in with that style. This can be as basic as how you spell the word grey, to as extensive as the percentage of the book your romantic subplot takes up.

You have to know, going in, what the expectations are and you have to know your book. There will always be elements of any story that shifted left or right will make it stand out far more than it did before. Elements that don't change the core of your story. But you have to know what that core is. You have to know what you're willing to change and what you aren't--and why.

And you really have to ask yourself why. If you're really attached to Greg's hair being green...well, why? Why does Xander die? Why does Lulu fall for Steve? These sorts of things can be malleable, while say, your gay main character being gay is not. While querying some years ago I did actually run into an agent who told me she wouldn't be able to sell my book because my MC was bisexual. More importantly, because he had a male love interest.

If an editor had told me to change that aspect of the book to make it saleable, I would have walked away.

It was my line in the sand.

Try to remember though, don't draw your line in the sand in front of something that isn't actually critical to the core of the story. Learning to see the difference between the core and the malleable elements will make you a better writer and learning to talk to your editor, mentor, critique partner will definitely make you a better writer.

Ask questions, make mistakes, get messy...)don't get in a yellow school bus with a woman who has a pet iguana that actually drives the school bus.)

You will get suggestions you don't use--and you better have an explanation (a good one) as to why you didn't think the change was necessary, warranted, etc. You cannot say, "Because I didn't want to." it will not fly.

Bottom line, talk to your editor. You'll be happy you did.

On Major Revisions

To start, I'm going to talk about a novel I wrote in college. It was experimental and told from multiple first-person POVS, twelve, actually, if I'm remembering correctly.

Yes, I said twelve. What I was aiming for was a story told patchwork, the heart of which remained the same while the rotation of narration deepened the understanding the reader had for the events, the city and the continual refrain that everything and everyone was connected. It was also high fantasy, starred a central POV and the other players were all tangential to this singular focus, adding to the whole.

It was ambitious, slightly insane and completely unsalable. My lit. department professor who was overseeing the project (Independent Study because I'd taken every single other writing course our college offered. All of them.) compared me to Cormac McCarthy in tone. I furrowed my brow in confusion, having never read the man's work (and still haven't) and moved on. This book, and all of it's madness, sat in a drawer resigned to obscurity.

One day I was bored and feeling masochistic, so I pulled this story back out and started to look at it. I could still feel what I'd felt when I started working on it and I still wanted that overarching concept of everything is connected, to move you through the book. So, I put on my writer hat and I rewrote it completely into omniscient third. This entailed some straight up retyping of whole chapters (which helped revise them anyhow), some find/replace on the word "I" and an overhaul of the ending, lengthening of the first act and changes to character's fates.

It was painful, tedious, work. But I could not be more happy that I did it. A more recent novel, (which I talk about more extensively here) has gone through stages. My very first draft, at the tender age of sixteen, was in third person. The revision later was in third and the revision after that was multiple first. Oddly, the format stuck on this project. There's a single "strong" central POV and the others rotate around that one in a set pattern that focuses on deepening your understanding of the events, highlighting the differences between worlds and more importantly, giving a greater focus on the main character.

That was the goal, in any case. I had major revisions on that novel at least three times. I cut entire chapters this last time around (and it's still longer than it was when I started), changed a character's gender (oddly, this was the least difficult change to make) and literally had to print out the entire book, part it out by scenes and rearrange the entire timeline.

These kind of revisions can seem incredibly daunting. I know, I've been there. But the important thing to remember going in to major revisions is:

Have a plan.

 

This is usually called a "Revision Plan", easy enough to remember. Before I started chopping, changing and so forth and first had to know where the hell I was going. I mean, you don't start driving without knowing where you're going, do you? Well, you might, but not in this instance. Your revision plan is your road map. A guide to show you where to go. I could continue with this, but I think you get the drift. 

How do I know where I'm going? 

This is where CP's, beta readers and your helpful neighborhood Batman...writer friends, come in handy. It can be difficult to judge something you've gotten close to, and I had the good fortune of having let both of the books referenced sit for a few years before I took another look at them. This let me look at them with less bias. More of a reader/editor perspective. I was able to get a better picture of what was wrong because I was no longer so close. 

If you are still close, you're going to need an outside perspective. Take your notes/their notes, compile them and start making a list of the things that will need changed. I usually put my revision plan in my document at the end, and then reference it as I go, but it can be a separate document, a notebook, on a whiteboard over your desk, pinned to the wall--whatever and wherever best suited to you. 

This is not a sprint. 

Revisions aren't even a marathon, they're a decathlon. Revisions require you to utilize all of your skills in order to finish. Pace yourself, have your CP/reader/kidnapped friend read your chapters, scenes, etcetera along the way. It's important to check in, make sure you're still headed in the right direction. Think of your CP as the robotic GPS voice, gently and loudly reminding you to turn left. 

And then, when you forget, giving you an alternate route. 

It's scary sometimes. You might feel like you're in over your head. Like the book is going to consume your soul and sell you off to the elder gods, but that's why writers work best with community. Take a break from the book. Take whatever time you need to get through the process, and that end, celebrate the fact that you have a book that's so much stronger than it was before.