Quoted By:
>TotT
The advantage of writing multiple stories is being able to experiment with how each handles conflict. Conflicts can derive from the story’s theme, but setting and tone are also important. I find using antagonists as a voice-piece for the other side of a thematic message to be fitting and rather satisfying if done well. If they can articulate the opposite of the principled protagonist, then that’s a good enough start, a passing grade to be sure. These members of the story shine in their manifestation of a personal code, ethos, or other reason for doing what it is that they do because it compels a reader to consider WHY these two ideologies are at odds. This leads into your point about the how they do what they do. As an example, an antagonist who has encountered the protag once and lost may do many things based on how they conceptualize overcoming their defeat. They may shrewdly recruit a group of hired thugs to try and beat up the protag next time with numbers. Or the antagonist may slip into the shadows and begin to command underlings to harass and weaken the protag as a puppet master would until the time comes (if at all) to reveal who is really behind the veil pulling the strings. They could take it real personal and hound after the protag, not accepting anything less than seeing their own hand humiliate and/or slay the one who opposed them. And, as you mention, if there exists common ground or a greater threat, protagonists and antagonists may unexpectedly team up.
Finally, you can be an anti-hero protagonist. I’ve been taking that route recently by writing about a thief and her Sneasel. It forces me to deal with traditional moral authorities such as the police, in addition to depraved criminals of the underworld, as potential antagonists. The longer I write, the more the conventional lines denoting a dichotomy of right and wrong seem to blur, as there are corrupt cops just as there are noble thieves. It’s the best experience yet.
