![]() ![]() All of these will seem dreadfully contrived, of course, unless they are seen as the direct result of their faults and the past actions they have taken because of those faults. Because of their cruelty, a henchman rebels against them because of their treachery, an ally abandons them because of their arrogance, they leave their flank unguarded because of their idleness they do not discover the secret that will be their undoing. Not a random mistake, but a mistake that they make for the very reason we hated them in the first place. ![]() The antagonist loses, despite their advantages, because their signature vice leads them to make a mistake. So the difference between winning and losing must itself rest on virtue. Why do we want the antagonist to lose? Because they lack virtue. Why do we want the hero to win? Because they are more virtuous. So the question becomes, under what circumstances is it satisfying to the audience that the hero wins anyway, even though the antagonist should clearly win. You will find all of these in literature but in popular works the first is obviously the most common. If the hero was clearly going to win, it would not be much of a story. Actually, most stories that have a specific antagonist depend on the antagonist being stronger than the protagonist, so logically the antagonist should win most of the time - unless they do something stupid. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |