Villain as tragic hero, and the dual-narrative framework

[Gryphos]

The antag is pretty much a villian in this case, but one can always dance around definitions. So, the villian wins becuase he forces the hero to need what he wants, and the hero achieves what he needs to be done, both the same thing... but the villian is killed, which would be okay with said villian, because sacrifice of their life for the goal was an acceptable risk. Hero and villian both win, so to speak.

Depends what the protagonist wants. If their narrative goal is the thing that the villain also wants them to do, then they don't have a protagonist-antagonist relationship.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

If you insist on a particular definition, mutually exclusive goals, then perhaps. While I believe this is a traditional view, I don't agree it's mandatory. Their goals beyond this one goal are at odds, but neither will live to see what side of the greater battle wins. One is the hero, one is the villian, and they both share a major goal and hence both succeed. But, it's hardly worth going into a long explanation of how all of this comes about.

Depends what the protagonist wants. If their narrative goal is the thing that the villain also wants them to do, then they don't have a protagonist-antagonist relationship.

 

[Helen]

I've been thinking a lot recently about Tragedy and what it means in storytelling from a structural perspective, and this has had me develop an interesting way of looking at the relationship between a story's protagonist and antagonist.

The basic conceit of this line of thought is that a tragic plot is one in which the protagonist fails in their narrative goal (yes, I know the discourse surrounding what defines Tragedy is literally millennia old, but this is my definition and it works with what I'm about to discuss). This is as opposed to a ... regular plot? I don't know what to call it, one in which the protagonist succeeds in their goal. Seriously, someone needs to come up with a viable term for the inverse of a tragic plot (I know that comedy is classically the inverse, but nowadays the term 'comedy' is too closely tied to humour to have more general use).

But anyway, granting this definition, there are two types of stories, ones where the protagonist succeeds (regular plot) and ones where they fail (tragic plot). I propose that almost every story can be conceptualised as possessing both a regular and a tragic plot.

Everyone knows the saying: "a villain is the hero of their own story". I would expand upon this line of thinking to suggest that in most stories, the villain is the tragic hero, inasmuch as they usually fail in their goal. And in tragic stories, the villain is a, uh ... regular hero (seriously, we need a better term). In other words, the arcs of the protagonist and antagonist exist in negative correlation. If the protagonist succeeds, the antagonist fails, and vice versa.

I would take Othello to be a good example. What does the protagonist Othello want? What's his goal? I would argue, his fundamental goal, as established in the first scene, is simply to remain happily married to Desdemona. Iago's goal is to destroy that relationship. Othello, through the events of the narrative, fails, while Iago succeeds. It doesn't matter that Iago is apprehended in the end; he still succeeds in his original goal.

So what's the practical utility of this framework? I believe it enables you to create a more compelling villain if you conceptualise them as a tragic hero. Enormous fulfilment can be gained from constructing a story in which the outcome is brought about not only because of the protagonist's development, but also the antagonist's — a combination of the hero's learned virtue and the villain's tragic faults. To put it simply, try thinking of your story as containing two narratives instead of one.

Sorry if this was a bit rambling, but what do you guys think of this framework? Is there a benefit to building a villain as a tragic hero? And what the hell are you supposed to call a plot that isn't tragic?

There is no structural difference.

Keeping it simple, look at it this way. Let's say for argument's sake that three acts is structure. Whether it's tragedy or not, it'll still be three acts.

 

[Gryphos]

There is no structural difference.

Keeping it simple, look at it this way. Let's say for argument's sake that three acts is structure. Whether it's tragedy or not, it'll still be three acts.

Act structures are not the be all and end all of story structure, though. Structure, the way I see it, is the conceptual shape of a story. So a story centering on an upward arc (regular) and one centering on a downward arc (tragic) are different structurally, since they have differing relationships between their beginnings and ends.

 

[Helen]

Act structures are not the be all and end all of story structure, though. Structure, the way I see it, is the conceptual shape of a story. So a story centering on an upward arc (regular) and one centering on a downward arc (tragic) are different structurally, since they have differing relationships between their beginnings and ends.

You're just arcing up or down.

You're not "changing shape" or creating a "dual narrative" or sidestepping acts or creating spurious connections between "shape" and structure; it doesn't change because of "differing relationships between beginning and ending."

 

[FifthView]

I think this is a matter of semantics, particularly with how "structure" is defined.

The most basic structure: A is the current state, some Event happens, B is the result; then E[SUB]2[/SUB] happens, and C is the result. And so on and on. Cause and effect.

As with the three-act structure, the content–the specifics of events and various changing states–doesn't particularly matter. The basic structure stays the same.

But we do sometime think in terms of character arcs. These arcs may be thought of as a shape, heh, or structure, and there are different character arcs happening–even if they, also, follow Cause-Effect. The Hero's Journey might be one type of said shape. Are there others?

As we put more onto this basic structure of cause-effect, more differentiation happens.

I think one interesting thing about literature is the way two characters can both be slaves to cause-effect but still have very different arcs. I think this speaks to the importance of the specifics that happen, almost as if the basic structures are irrelevant. But simultaneously, those basic structures are not irrelevant, heh. This friction interests me.