Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Two Protagonists?
I started an online course this week. It's the Deep Story course (This link is to the class in Oct but I think it's being offered other places this summer too) being conducted by Carol Hughes. First of all, I've never taken an online course and I admit I was skeptical. I love the classroom. I love going to school, I love teaching at school, and I love the face to face interplay of traditional education. I wasn't sure I was going to like learning in this new, modern way.
But the information Ms. Hughes has already given us has been worth the money I paid. In short, this class rocks. If you get a chance, take it this year some time.
Anyway, I couldn't even begin to tell you all the stuff that's included in just the first lesson, but one epiphany I had as a result of her course has to do with the role of the protagonist.
For years I've wondered about the seeming paradox of having two protagonists in romance. In most romance novels, the hero and the heroine get equal face time. They each have their conflicts, external and internal. They are both invested in the overall story.
But there are two!! That does NOT fit in with the story structure I learned in school. It doesn't fit with the way I taught story structure.
In short, it didn't make sense.
Therefore, I've spent a couple years just wading around in the bogs, trying to find my way, hoping I just luck out and get it right. I might as well get out my metal detector and roam around in a busy parking lot. Maybe I'll find a coin or someone's lost piece of jewelry but the payoffs are small and few and far between.
Until yesterday and Carol Hughes' class.
In her material, she explained the role of the Contagonist.
I believe the term comes from Dramatica.com.
The idea is that the Contagonist is the obstacle character. However, the Contagonist is not the Antagonist. While the Antagonist wants to prevent the Protagonist from accomplishing their goal, the Contagonist wants to divert or delay the Protagonist from their goal, or accomplish the goal in a different way.
To give you some examples. In Harry Potter, Snape is a main Contagonist. In Star Wars, Darth Vader is the Contagonist. In the Matrix, Trinity is the Contagonist.
In romance, the Protagonist and the Contagonist are your hero and heroine.
One thing I found particularly interesting is that the Protagonist doesn't have to be the heroine, something I always felt necessary in romance. But, that's not true and, in fact, my hero is the Protagonist of my story.
So, today I'm going to ask you to think about this idea. Can you think of any other Contagonists in either movies or books? Is your Protagonist your hero or your heroine? What's the goal they're trying to accomplish? And how is the Contagonist complicating that goal?
If you don't feel like playing along—I know, I can hear the whining, "Marnee…. This is your class, not my class"—then have you had any craft epiphanies lately?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Books by the Crew
41 comments:
Ha! Well, in Pirates of the Caribbean, if Will is the protag, then I'd have to almost say either Elizabeth and Jack are the contags! A threesome! I suppose it would be Elizabeth...
If Jack were the protag, then the ship is the contag and...Barbossa is the antag?
;-)
Let's see, in the current WIP...Janey is the protag... Daniel (yup, I ended up with the name Daniel) is the romantic interest and the contag. The antag? I suppose it's the Admiral of the circus.
Oh, how is my contag complicating things... Well, totally disrupted the romance...but as in all things, will actually help to bring them together as they work the single goal of retrieving my annoying 14 year old and saving her soul. And they aren't going to agree at all on how to do that.
See, I would have thought, at least in the first POTC, that Elizabeth is the Protagonist. She takes the coin from Will, then she's the one who falls into the ocean and sets off the events of the story. Then she's the one who does the bartering.
I'd imagine then that Will is the contagonist.
But it's been a while since I've seen the movie so maybe I'm off?
There's a teenager in your new story? That should be fun! ;)
Marn, thanks for sharing this -- I was actually writing a post for my blog on the topic of conflict, and I'd come to the same conclusion about obstacle characters. I didn't have a cool name for them though. LOL I like "contagonist".
I never thought of the heroine being the protagonist every time. Mmm. In fact, I'd say the hero is often the protag in my manuscripts. For this novella I just finished writing, I had to figure out who was the protag so I could decide whose POV the last scene would be in (hopefully I picked correctly!)
P.S. totally loving the picture of Snape up there. *swoons*
This class does sound really awesome. And it is offered again this August at Low Country Romance Writers. I plan to take it. :) (Right now I'm taking one called: Man Talk, because my hero sounds like a woman right now and Bo'sun thought it would be a good idea to not make him sound like a whiney girl all the time.)
Is this where I can confess I've not had a problem with having two protagonists in a story? I mean, I've always thought of the hero and heroine as equal or nearly equal protagonists in a story. But I also believe that every story belongs a little more to one character than the other, even if the hero and heroine share equal screen time. One of the characters almost always has more to learn than the other one, or is more difficult to teach the same lesson to.
HOWEVER, that said, I've also never had to teach story structure to anyone and that might make a difference. I tend to take a lot of stuff on faith and intuition and it'll eventually work out even if I'm not grasping the concepts right now--the same way I learned Algebra.
And I too am not a writer who thinks of my heroine as the protagonist in most of my stories. I usually think of my heroes as the protagonists. (It might be half and half.) *shrugs* Which is odd, admittedly, since I just confessed my heroes sound like whiney girls.
My first epiphany of this week was that Donna was exactly right on Tuesday. I was attempting to force a process with this new WIP that simply wasn't working. WHY I deviated from the process that worked that last time, I have no idea. But, another lesson learned.
I have never thought the heroine had to be the protag of a romance and in fact saw the hero of the new WIP as the protag, believing the story belonged more to him. You guessed it, WRONG AGAIN. Which is why the first scene isn't working, it's from his POV.
Apparently, this is epiphany week for me. And here is yet another one. Like Marn, I've been floundering for four years trying to figure out how you could have two protags in the same story. Just didn't gel in my head and I knew I was missing something. And Huzzah! Here is that something.
Seriously, between the epiphanies and the two extra vitamins a day, my week is so looking up.
Donna - I think my stories usually feature male protagonists too. In fact, I think a lot of stories do. I thought contagonist was a good name too. I'd never heard it before but it fills a void in how I always viewed story structure and the romance genre.
Hells - Actually, the whole equal hero and heroine thing is part of what this teacher calls Throughlines. I think Dramatica touches on that too, but that each character has their story, then they have a romantic storyline together and that all fits into the bigger story. I'm still working through that.
I do think I had a hang up on my heroine being the catalyst of the story. I had my first chapter in my heroine's POV for the longest time and it just wasn't working. I finally switched it to the hero and all of a sudden, it worked better. But, that was another hang up. I assumed the story had to start with the heroine. Not sure why.
And you're welcome for Snape. :)
Bo'sun - Yay epiphanies!!
Ugh, though, about finding the process that works. I've finished two stories previous and yet I still feel like I'm wading through sludge at every start. It really should get easier, shouldn't it? Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
But go you with the vitamins. Maybe I need that too....
Terri, I'm glad I helped you with your epiphany! #notaeuphemism
I think it's good to try new things -- it stretches us and gives us a new perspective, and ultimately it helps us decide what our process is.
One reason I like this whole contagonist notion is because I have never felt comfortable with conflict in a book that feels almost like warfare. Esp. when these two people are going to be all lovey dovey by the end. LOL
So I like to think in terms of opposing goals, a la contagonists. Like when you're on a plane, and you have to get to the bathroom but the flight attendant wheels out that drinks cart that blocks the whole aisle. Both parties have important goals, but if one succeeds, the other fails. No warfare, just opposite needs.
See, this is all changing my perspective and I love how Donna puts it. I hate that preaching about "Make her a food critic and him a chef!" or "Make him a land developer and her a conservationist!" The demand to make the H/H diametric enemies to increase conflict feels like too much to me. I like the "opposing needs" idea so much better.
One reason I like this whole contagonist notion is because I have never felt comfortable with conflict in a book that feels almost like warfare. Esp. when these two people are going to be all lovey dovey by the end. LOL
I don't care for it because, while it can be done well, it's usually overdone. (Like the way my hubby cooks steak. Blackened.) In order for me to believe in the HEA, I have to believe that these people really, truly, like and respect each other. If they are at each other's throats the whole time ... not so much.
I like the contagonist idea. I think, in my latest novel the hero is the protagonist, with the heroine being the contagonist. Although, they could just as easily both be protagonists. Hmmm. Fun discussion, as always.
Agree, Pat. If they fight throughout the book only to suddenly like each other in the last 20 or 30 pages, I'm probably not going to believe it. And believability is everything for the HEA. If it's gradual and the change of opinion starts earlier enough, then I can go along.
Both parties have important goals, but if one succeeds, the other fails. No warfare, just opposite needs.
Exactly! Or, if they are working toward the same goal but have different ways of achieving it, or different desired outcomes.
Like they want the bad guy to be apprehended. But say the one wants to turn him in for a reward and the other wants him dead to feel safe. Same goal, different desired outcomes.
Pat, I agree with the Bo'sun and you. If they spend the whole time at odds, then there's no way for them to let down their guard and fall in love. I think some authors use lust and sex to hide that, but I don't know if I ever buy it completely.
I think the trick is to have the H/H battle about stuff that isn't important in the long run. I mean, apprehending the bad guy and stopping him from blowing up the world is the big goal and they both agree of that.
So...one wants the bounty, the other wants to arrest him...
Same overall goal.
But they are going to spend the book at odds because of how they want to do it...
I like my couple working as a team, to be honest. But I put a whole lot of action/adventure in my books and the romance is there, but not the main thread???? I'm not entirely sure.
As the Bo'sun knows, I tend to shy away from too much analysis for fear of driving my muse away... To me, it's like killing the goose who lays the golden eggs to see how she does it.
But this works for other writers, so have at it! ;-)
Or looking behind the curtain when you visit the Wizard, eh, Chance? *LOL*
Do you watch documentaries on movies (the extras) to see how parts of the movie were made? I consider that like this, and I won't watch them most of the time because it ruins the magic of me watching them again. I end up going, "Oh, they used wet colored cornstarch for the blood. And they were looking at a tennis ball when they screamed."
"Contagonist"--I like that term.
I do think of my heroine as the protagonist. I suspect many romance writers--and readers--do. After all, it's only relatively recently, in terms of romance novel history, that we have even been given the hero's pov.
Mention of pov is a convenient segue into my latest epiphany. I'm reading The Power of Point of View by Alicia Rasley and experiencing a series of epiphanies. It's definitely the craft book I needed at this particular moment. I've spent the past several weeks caught in a write-and-delete cycle, making no real progress on my WIP. This morning I've written 2K words that I'm reasonably pleased with. They came after I followed one of Rasley's suggestions: writing in the first-person voice of your central question, answer this question--"How did you get yourself in this situation?"
That exercise unlocked my hero for me. I feel as if I know him now rather than just assorted facts about him. And now I can think of him as the contagonist with a means of reaching a mutual goal that creates an obstacle to the heroine's reaching the goal. That helps too. Thanks, Marn!
I love Rasley's Power of POV. That is a great craft book!! (I checked it out from the library, but it's one I've been wanting to add to my shelves.)
Pat, I agree with the Bo’sun and you. If they spend the whole time at odds, then there’s no way for them to let down their guard and fall in love. I think some authors use lust and sex to hide that, but I don’t know if I ever buy it completely.
As a reader, I think you've all hit on what's been really bothering me with some of the books I've picked up lately. The conflict has been more combat! And it's true that I haven't been able to buy into the HEA because of that. You hear the negative internal dialogue ("she's a weak bleeding heart wimp with no backbone"/"he's a self righteous jerk only in it for himself") throughout the whole book and then are supposed to believe these two actually like each other and it's not just about the sex (which is another hot button for me lately, don't get me started...)
I like the idea of the contagonist. It makes the conflict more internal and seems to put the emphasis more on character development, which is always a good thing, IMHO.
I'm hearing more and more the complaint about sex does not a relationship make and it's interesting... I'm wondering if there will a new trend of more civilized sex/making love/f*cking... Which is where the conflict with a lot of readers comes into play...
How to differentiat between them and weave them in a believable way into a real romance! Not just a f*ckrance.
Sorry if I offend, but that is what I'm hearing... I mean, if want to read hard core rutting, it's out there. But it does seem like it's leaking into romance and for the most part, it isn't welcome...
Let me restate that I’m wondering if there will a new trend toward of more civilized sex/making love/f*cking…
It just seems like a lot of readers, not the thrill me/make me wet readers want more substance and not just hot sexual chemistry.
Not that I have a problem with hot sexual chemistry. But in the end we want to believe it. Hard to do if the writer has us convinced the only good that will come of this pairing is an explosion that will flatten the lab...
Yeah, you know, Chance, I've always thought it was just me and my old fuddy duddy ways! LOL I just have a really hard time buying into the "he's hot let's just screw!" mentality.
I feel as if it's a hard thing to discuss - I get the feeling that a lot of women feel as if this is their do. They've put up with the "I only want sex" male perspective for so long and they are entitled to feel that way too, as if this is some sort of feminine right that we've been denied by the nasty males along with every other right denied us over the centuries.
The problem is that I, myself, have a hard time believing in a HEA when there is no emotional attachment involved. I think women, as a rule, (don't throw me overboard here!) need to feel *something* for a guy they're gonna have sex with. If not love then at least friendship, a liking and a semblance of respect. I suppose it comes back to the question of whether sex is all about the physical act or if the most important sex organ is actually the brain.
I have no problem with sex throughout a book so long as it makes sense. If the sex runs absolutely agains everything the characters are established to be and even their internal thoughts/external behavior, then the sex is out of place and won't work.
Nora's characters often have sex throughout the story. Doesn't diminish the conflict or go against character type. Meg Benjamin pulls it off beautifullly in her Konigsburg series. Plenty of sex (not over the top heat but gooood) and still lots of conflict, both externally in the story and internally in the romance.
Irish - I very much agree with you that if they clearly see nothing good about each other for 350 pages, I'm not going to believe they've changed so drastically in the last 50. Let them start out thinking horrible things about each other, but they better start changing their minds no later than 100. It can be gradual, but it can't be instant at the end.
I agree about Meg's books, Ter. I actually just finished Book #2 and downloaded Book #3. Janie and Pete are a good example. They've only known each other a short time, but they are attracted to one another. It is more than that though, cause Meg shows how flat "just sex" is with another character. Pete and Janie talk and connect and it seems like it's just sex at first but you can see that it's more.
I love great, well-written sex. I usually won't read a novel that doesn't feature it--that's how much I like it. I think what I get tired of in some of the romances is that by the time the sex is had, it suddenly takes over the book, like some secondary character who should not be getting so much lead time.
When I get to a point in a novel where I'm thinking, "For God's sake, aren't they done having sex yet?" that is always a bad sign. I really get irked if a few pages pass, they get a sandwich from the kitchen, then they have another 10 pages of sex. Give it a rest. This is a duke/CEO/cowboy, not a sailor on shore leave.
When the sex becomes the conflict, action, tension, and point of 2/3 of the novel, it gets boring. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. "He fucked her. AGAIN. He doesn't know if he really wants her. So they do it again. He's still not convinced. Lather, rinse, repeat." I'm just BORED. And if you bore me with sex, I'm pissed about it.
It can be the most romantic sex in the world, and if they're having sex before the ball, during the ball, and after the ball--I assure you I'm TIRED of it. It's like watching a Regency version of an MTV reality show.
It's also a good example of showing and not telling. She shows their conversations and how they treat each other.
"...Lather, rinse, repeat.” I’m just BORED. And if you bore me with sex, I’m pissed about it.
Exactly! If I'm skipping pages to get to the good part and the pages I'm skipping are the sex scenes that's pretty bad!
As in anything, it's all in how you do it. Read a short erotic romance earlier this year that had a couple romping frequently but it was so well done, it worked. There was plot, there were real stakes that had nothing to do with the sex. Yet, they had sex a lot and I never felt the need to skip ahead.
As in the real thing, it's all in the execution. ;)
Yeah, but it's the sex when the conflict that seems to be between them is never resolved that pisses me off. The instant f*ckability factor that overides every other aspect of their lives?
I love well written sex scenes and I can believe in a HFN and that it can evolve into a HEA...but can two people have nothing going for them but the FEA?
And I swear, most of the shifter stuff I read about is all how the 'animal attraction' (literally) overtakes the humanity of the relationship...
ARGH!
I write a lot of strange stuff and I love tossing sex in just because it feels good, but not as an alternative to building a relationship within the writing that is workable.
I consider it lazy writer syndrom... it's too ha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ard to develop my characters behind the chemistry!
I feel like I'm watching porn where they insert *gratuitous sex scenary number 6* because the story was getting in the way of naked people. (Here is where I fast forward.)
Yes, some porn has some nice stories going on between the sex. ;-)
Hi guys. Sorry. It's been one of those days. My in-laws hot water broke and I had to run over there and deal with the plumber while everyone else was at work. Good fun. So I'm backed up on comments. I'll get to them now. Sorry.
It just seems like a lot of readers, not the thrill me/make me wet readers want more substance and not just hot sexual chemistry.
Um, see when I was in my teens and early twenties, when sex was largely a mystery, fraught with hang ups and shame, any fictional sex was thrilling. I also, thought the Bickering McBickersons kind of story lines were hot.
Of course, my real life relationships, while, er, fun, were a train wreck.
Now, the much old me, married to my best friend, looks back at younger me and shakes her head. I can't imagine navigating the treacherous waters of a long-term relationship with someone that I can't have a civil, grown-up, conversation with. And while sex is mah-velous, if two people don't like each other as persons, and don't respect and admire each other ... "Hello divorce court."
Of course, mileage may vary.
I'm so with you on that, Pat. And I think the real interesting stuff happens after you're settled with one person and working through the kinks. People change, life present challenges and how the team of a couple works, or doesn't work, is drama enough for me.
Like with Rourke and Eve...things got really interesting after they were married and became a real team. And it's still hot.
I think it's cool that Chance just goes with it. It's very free-spirited. I couldn't do it, but I think it's cool that it works for her.
Janga - That exercise unlocked my hero for me. I feel as if I know him now rather than just assorted facts about him. And now I can think of him as the contagonist with a means of reaching a mutual goal that creates an obstacle to the heroine’s reaching the goal. That helps too. Thanks, Marn!
Hooray! Go you and that's great! I'll have to look up this book. POV is a very interesting topic and one that I don't think any writer can know too much about. :)
Irish - You hear the negative internal dialogue (“she’s a weak bleeding heart wimp with no backbone”/”he’s a self righteous jerk only in it for himself”) throughout the whole book and then are supposed to believe these two actually like each other and it’s not just about the sex
This is exactly my thoughts too!
It's much easier though, as a writer, to write them at odds the whole time and just subject to a very strong sex drive to cover up the lack of growth in their feelings for one another. I've noticed it particularly in the newer, hotter historical. (Disclaimer, not all, just some). Now that the previously virginal heroine can get jiggy with it at will, there's a whole new wave of them. Not necessarily a good thing, at least not for this reader.
Ter - If the sex runs absolutely agains everything the characters are established to be and even their internal thoughts/external behavior, then the sex is out of place and won’t work.
I, personally, have a hard time buying the, "I hate him but he's soooo hot" argument in romance. It might just be me though. I've never felt like that myself. In my experience, I never thought about the men I disliked as being hot. In fact, I knew annoying, dirtbag men who were incredibly goodlooking but their personalities were a turnoff. Therefore, I find a heroine who can forget that she despises someone because she wants to have sex (satisfying sex, no less) with them a bit unbelievable.
I win the run-on sentence award of the day.
Marn - It's not even so much that they don't like each other, but the historical miss that has been ruined in the past and vows never to be another man's plaything who continuously falls into bed with him while still declaring she won't be taken again drives me BATTY. LOL!
If I tried, I could beat you for that award...
Give it a rest. This is a duke/CEO/cowboy, not a sailor on shore leave.
Favorite comment of the day. And complete agreement.
Chance - Yeah, but it’s the sex when the conflict that seems to be between them is never resolved that pisses me off.
Ditto.
And I consider it lazy writer syndrom… it’s too ha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ard to develop my characters behind the chemistry!
hahaha!! Exactly!
You guys are saying good stuff. It almost makes up for me being all over the map today and not as here as I should have been.
I can’t imagine navigating the treacherous waters of a long-term relationship with someone that I can’t have a civil, grown-up, conversation with.
I agree. I think that if the couple never is shown working towards a compromise, I can't honestly see them together in the long run. Without the ability to compromise, I can't imagine a relationship working.
Oh, and I liked your run on.
I think I'm caught up. Sorry I was out of it for a while, guys.
People change, life present challenges and how the team of a couple works, or doesn’t work, is drama enough for me.
Ain't that the truth?
And Bo'sun - the historical miss that has been ruined in the past and vows never to be another man’s plaything who continuously falls into bed with him while still declaring she won’t be taken again drives me BATTY.
You and me both. This bothers me because of characterization AND because of historical inaccuracy. It's fine if a woman has a libido in a historical, but to completely ignore the social structure? At least she should realize how perilous it is to ignore the society factors around her.
Seems like every day is a crazy day lately, Marn. My day was so weird, I forgot to leave work. LOL! And I can't believe tomorrow is Friday already.
Post a Comment