6.4 KiB
[Q] Rational antagonist?
-
Author: u/Faust91x Iteration X*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3kcupx/q_rational_antagonist/
-
Score: 10
-
Created: 2015-09-10T05:24:46
Post:
Hello, I'm fairly new to rational fics but really enjoyed Methods of Rationality and The Metropolitan Man so I'm interested in trying to write a short story.
I have an idea about a trilogy starting with a long lived character that the antagonist (which is meant to be an even longer lived entity) guides towards an apparently altruist end while teaching the protagonist of rationalism, having the protagonist become smarter and a better thinker as the story progresses.
Plan to start the second part revealing how the antagonist played the protagonist since the beginning and how it was working on a whole other level the protagonist couldn't even fathom against even stronger adversaries.
I actually intend to have the protagonist lose due to not being able to keep up with the antagonist.
But that makes me wonder if it would risk making rationalism appear as inherently evil and something only villains do. Is there a way to avoid that?
Also, would a work still be classified as rational if the protagonist isn't at the beginning but slowly develops into one?
Comments:
u/alexanderwales [+8] Time flies like an arrow (13 hours later)
You can get away with anything if you write well enough. There is no convention that you cannot break if you break it with due deliberation.
So to know whether it's okay to kill a protagonist mid-stream and switch to his mentor figure, you need to know why the convention exists in the first place. Part of it is pattern-matching; it's pleasing to look at a story that's the same as other stories, because we can recognize the ebb and flow of the narrative as familiar.
More importantly, it's easier to develop a character if you're focusing on them, and it's easier to get the audience to feel some sympathy towards them. If there's just one person, it's fairly easy to make them proactive, competent, etc., since they don't need to share screen time with other people who are also showing their proactivity, competence, etc.
Preparing for the switch is easy enough; you just have to make the antagonist/mentor figure likable enough to the audience, enough to counter what he's going to do to the protagonist. You also need to make sure that the "turn" is handled well enough so that it appears that the trajectory the protagonist was on is complete (or so that the actual trajectory -- the one that leads to his death -- is obvious in retrospect through foreshadowing). You also need to make the betrayal either sympathetic, competent, proactive, or all three, in order to enhance the enjoyment of the twist.
u/Faust91x [+1] Iteration X (18 hours later)
That gave me lots of ideas to work with, thanks a lot for the input!
u/Farmerbob1 [+13] Level 1 author (an hour later)
You will need to be very careful. Protagonist-killing tends to make readers annoyed.
Plan to start the second part revealing how the antagonist played the protagonist since the beginning and how it was working on a whole other level the protagonist couldn't even fathom against even stronger adversaries.
I'm looking at your wording, and it seems as if you are considering a three-tier scenario. Protagonist, Standard Antagonist, and Anathema Antagonist.
If the plan is to have the original antagonist be a hidden protagonist, I can see some possibilities.
If you are going to kill off the initial protagonist and switch the initial antagonist into a protagonist role, I suggest you do it with a very powerful knockout scene at the end of a book. I cannot think of any books where this has been done, though I'm sure there have been some.
EDIT ADD
Also, would a work still be classified as rational if the protagonist isn't at the beginning but slowly develops into one?
I hope so. That's what I'm trying to do with Set In Stone.
u/None [+9] (6 hours later)
A scene like that, in a really well-written book, would be the reading experience of the year for me.
u/darkkaos505 [+2] (10 hours later)
I can think of a book that did it but saying the book is ovb a massive spoiler.
u/Farmerbob1 [+1] Level 1 author (11 hours later)
Eh, I'd like to know the book, put it in spoiler format?
u/darkkaos505 [+2] (11 hours later)
u/Farmerbob1 [+1] Level 1 author (12 hours later)
Thanks! It looks like the book got some good reviews, and the basic world overview looks interesting. I haven't read fantasy for a while, so I think I'll pick up book one and see if I like the author's style.
u/Kishoto [+2] (20 hours later)
I've read , can vouch for it, it's VERY good. It's a trilogy iirc, and book 1 and 2 are out. It's very thought provoking, and pretty much all the characters that get more than two lines of dialogue are three-dimensional characters to the fullest.
EDIT: Spoiler tag secured.
u/Empiricist_or_not [+1] Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm (a day later)
Please spolier the title in your post.
u/Faust91x [+1] Iteration X (18 hours later)
I see, thanks a lot for the replies!
And yeah it's more or less what I intend. For the protagonist to become more rational but keep one major flaw that it isn't willing to change which the antagonist exploits to win.
At the end to be offered the chance of overcoming it to at least end with a tie but finding it's not willing to go change that and die.
u/traverseda [+5] With dread but cautious optimism (2 hours later)
Also, would a work still be classified as rational if the protagonist isn't at the beginning but slowly develops into one?
Definitely. You want to show skills that can be used in real life.
u/neshalchanderman [+2] (7 hours later)
But that makes me wonder if it would risk making rationalism appear as inherently evil and something only villains do. Is there a way to avoid that?
Juet because someone acting rationally acts evilly doesnt mean someone acting rationally must act evilly. Most readers will get that. Don't write down to your readers, treating them as children. You're likely to just bore them.