Apologies for this, I opened a thesaurus when in an odd mood, and the realisation that there are such terms as deuteragonist and tritagonist gave me pause for thought.

The thing is, ignoring pure character drama; most of the "how to" books I've looked at try to get you to be able to condense your story into a single, central, theme / struggle to achieve a single, recognisable objective. In that context, it seems logical to assume that the antagonist _must_ be very important to the story. But does that mean s/he must also be the second-most important character? For example, in Harry Potter, the antagonist is almost a bit-part! Maybe this is a trivial question as, from the top of my head, I can see no good reason why the antagonist needs to be anything more than an obviously bad "bad-guy" (at least from the POV of the protagonist). Equally, it is much easier to leave questions in the mind of the reader if you don't allow them to see the workings of the antagonist's mind.

So, is there ever a case for the antagonist to be treated as a major character? Surely, if the reader is exposed to both sides of the argument with equal or near-equal weight, they will find it difficult to sympathise with your hero/heroine as they could easily find the antagonist's arguments are more convincing. (Speaking as a child of Guardian readers, I understand the perils of seeing both sides too clearly. )
G

There is a difference between giving equal column inches to the anttagonist & protagonist, and making the antagonist the central driving force to the narrative. In the HP books, Voldermort may be spread thinly through the seven books, but he is, ultimately, the reason why everything happens to Harry and those around him. What would Snape's motivations be if it wasn't for his history with Voldermort? Why would there be antagonism between the pure-bloods and the mud-bloods without the war instigated by Voldermort?, etc.
One of JKR's strengths is that she leaves a lot of unanswered questions about Voldermort, which turns the 7 books into thrillers rather than straight fantasy, with the big denoument left until book 7.
If we had a lot more about Voldermort's life it may well make him more interesting than HP, but JKR also draws a lot of parallels between HP and the young Tom Marvalo's early lives - both orphans, both gifted magicians, etc - but one turns to good, and the other to the dark arts. So she doesn't really need to have both narratives in the books.


- NaomiM

I had forgotten that Tom Marvolo even existed!

I think I agree entirely that the antagonist, usually

may be spread thinly [...] but he is, ultimately, the reason why everything happens

In fact, I would go further and say that it is surely much easier to write a book where this is the case.

So, to rephrase the question based on the definition I saw of deuteragonist as (in stage terms) "the actor next in importance to the protagonist" which translates (in writing terms) to has there ever been a good and / or successful novel where the antagonist was given equal or near equal "column inches"?

How about John Fowles' The Collector? The MC is the antagonist!
Susiex

How about John Fowles' The Collector?

Just ordered that, sounds like fun.

The MC is the antagonist!

Is that even possible? If the definition of protagonist is correct in dictionary.com, surely the MC is _always_ the protagonist, even if (as here) he is a little eccentric?

Just ordered that, sounds like fun.

Um, not to spoil anything, but it is anything but fun. A brilliant book, though. I read it in my twenties, and it's stayed with me ever since.
I suppose I'd call him an antagonist because he is 'anti-good', while a pro-tagonist seems to be for-good? Or perhaps that we are 'for' a protagonist and 'anti' an antagonist? Anyway, will be interested to see what you think when you read it.
Susiex

I suppose I'd call him an antagonist because he is 'anti-good'

The definition only seems to say that protagonist is the lead or main character. Doesn't seem to be any requirement that they are in any way likeable or good, otherwise godawful assaults on humanity like Donna Tarte's "the Secret History" (where nobody in the entire book is likeable) would have no protagonist whatsoever!

Seems like the collector in "the Collector" is very definitely the lead and the main character, therefore the protagonist, even though his peculiar habits are not destined to win our support.

Without having read it, the antagonist ("the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama") in this case is either the society that fails to understand him or, possibly (not read it, so can't say) the girl he has "collected".

it is anything but fun. A brilliant book, though.

Can't wait!

Um. I s'pose it depends what the 'anti' and the 'pro' in the words are actually meant to be for or against. Or does 'pro' mean 'proactive' in the plot, and 'anti' mean anti whatever the protagonist is for?
I think I need to lie down, now.
Susiex

A brilliant book, though. I read it in my twenties, and it's stayed with me ever since.

Read the first section in one go, which was brilliant, and then got frustrated by the second section as I didn't really care about George Paston (her non-boyfriend boyfriend) and couldn't understand why she would be obsessing over a dirty old man whom she would doubtless never see again rather than a psychotic young man who had imprisoned her and she would see every day until she died. The next two sections were more powerful (to me) if inexorably heading towards an inevitable conclusion that could have been guessed at from the first page. I guess it would have been more powerful if I was a) female and b) at a "collectable" age (I am neither). It was an interesting approach on the way to tackle isolation in your MCs, but you could really feel the gulf in attitudes between now and when it was written.

Coming back to the opening thread; to me, the MC and the protagonist is definitely Fred / Ferdinand / Caliban. Although Miranda has "equal column inches" and would be the antagonist if she ever actually challenged him, she is really just a play-thing and quite remarkably inert. She is realistic, but a "non-character" and even her non-existent (and tedious) relationship with George Paston had more interest than her. So, no, she is not the antagonist and TBH, I don't know why the author bothered to include the second section at all. I think the book would have been stronger (but shorter) if focussed entirely on him and the battle with the parts of himself he doesn't understand.

Which brings us to the antagonist and I can now agree with your statement that he is both protagonist and antagonist. But, because he is borderline psychotic and doing battle as much with himself as anybody else, even here, I maintain that the antagonist is still not fully explained.

G

PS: Thanks for the book recommendation! Second section notwithstanding, a very good read and I learnt a lot in terms of technique.

<Added>

PPS:

the society that fails to understand him

I have read and re-read the blurb associated with this book and cannot find any justifiable means to tie the two together. Methinks the blurb was a) not written by the author and b) not written by somebody who finished reading the book.

If you think of the story as the 'What does s/he want? How do they try to get it? What gets in the way?' form, then one of the antagonists - what gets in the way - can be a part of the protagonist's character. In which case you only need combine that sometimes getting in the way with an external antagonist, and the latter doesn't have to be the cause of every hurdle the protagonist has to overcome, and might appear relatively minor. But you've got a much more interesting plot.

Emma

The trouble is, based on that formula and "the Collector":

What does s/he want?

A pet woman.

How do they try to get it?

He catches one.

What gets in the way?

Nothing at all. And then she dies.

It's a thin enough book even including the problematic second section (that simply reworks what happened in the first section). The trouble is, the protagonist is almost certainly lying about what is happening even to himself! And the narration is first person without any credible change occurring in either collector or collected... There is no character arc to speak of, no growth, no obstacles or hurdles, no epiphany and arguably no plot. In fact, I don't think that the real tension of the book occurs anywhere within it's pages! :0 In fact, the only reason I can see for it still managing to be a compelling read is unconscious role-play on the part of the readers.

So I am wondering, in fact, whether this book actually _has_ an antagonist?

Oh dear.
As I remember it, it was very powerful, though that was a long time ago.
Susiex

As I remember it, it was very powerful

You have already confessed that at the time you were:

a) female and b) at a "collectable" age

So it probably had more resonance!

Also, for the record, I found the book quite compelling and would be happy to write something half as good (I read the first section without putting it down once). That said, I think it misses the currently propagandised ideals of story and character by several miles - IMHO it works because of the reader's imagination.

But, coming back to the point, I still have no examples of a use of "the balanced" protagonist / antagonist as in "equal column inches" for both.

Still searching for an example...

G

How about Hanibal Lecter? He certainly shares column inches with Clarice?
In fact it's difficult to say which one is the protagonist and which the antagonist.
HB x

There are the 'Why dunnits', different from the 'Who dunnits' by the reader knowing from the start who the murderer is, but not why they've done it, and it's not always clear if the murderer is an antagonist or protagonists - although don't ask me any titles 'cause it's a long time since I read any.......ok, how about Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, where the MCs are the two murderers. Although non-fiction, Capote treated it as a fiction novel.


- NaomiM