The Tactical Antagonist

Tactical refers to the art of using one's resources effectively and efficiently to achieve a specific goal or objective. It involves planning, organizing, and executing actions methodically and strategically, considering all available information, resources, and potential obstacles. The word has a military connotation but also refers to strategic and well-thought-out actions in other fields, such as business, politics, sports, etc. It is the ability to think critically and make sound decisions to achieve a desired outcome in uncertainty. It's the ability to outmaneuver competitors, adversaries, or obstacles, to achieve one's goals.

An antagonist in the context of a story is a character or force that opposes the protagonist, creating conflict and tension that drives the narrative forward. An antagonist can take many forms, from a person with opposing goals or beliefs to an external force such as nature or society. They can be villainous or malevolent characters or simply someone whose actions or thoughts directly contradict the protagonists. The antagonist is not necessarily a "bad" character but rather one who creates obstacles for the protagonist to overcome, forcing them to grow, evolve, and ultimately triumph over the conflict. In short, an antagonist is an opposing force that challenges the protagonist to overcome to achieve their goal and complete their story arc.

The antagonist can become formulaic rather than tactical. Just plug in the same characters into a setting. This does not necessarily mean that the story is boring by any means, but rather that the antagonist is being used only to aggravate the reader or audience so that they crave the relief of revenge.

Aldous Huxley wrote in his 1921 novel Chrome Yellow:

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”

In the context of the antagonist, an easy way to keep people engaged in a story is to work them up into a state of anger and resentment toward an antagonist, promising that at some point in the future, they will get to see the protagonist, or some other force, treat them badly. Often very badly. And this feels satisfying.

This is part of the principle of tension and release, used in many art forms, including music and stories. Know a song with an intro you love because it gets you fired up for that moment of release when the main riff kicks in?

Revenge without balance may be “feeding the bad dog.” This is a concept from a story of which there is some debate over the origin, so I won't attempt to settle that here, but a simple version is this:

An elder explains to a child that two dogs live inside us. A good one (love, selflessness) and a bad one (fear, resentment). They are in an ongoing fight.

The child asks, “which one will win the fight?”

The elder replies, “whichever one you feed.”

Having a well-hated antagonist works. They succeed in getting people quickly and intensely engaged. They hook our fear and our insecurity. We feel the hurt of the innocents affected. Our tool for protection against hurt and fear is anger, and engaging stories can bring this out. But if the only result after chapters and chapters of tension-building is that the bad guy gets blown up, the only takeaway is more stress. More anger. And an association of gratification with cruelty. Feeding the bad dog.

Going back to the quote from Aldous Huxley, just because maltreating someone may seem justified, it is still treating someone badly. It feeds resentment, fear, and stress.

Our bodies do not know the difference between stress from real-life events or engaging fantasy. I certainly do not mean to imply stories should be free of stress or fear, but consuming high amounts with no positive other than experiencing the satisfying release produced by revenge can add up.

In the same way that certain nutrients are essential, too much, especially without balance, can be harmful.

A good story reflects life and teaches something as well, conveying hope. If the only purpose of an antagonist is to get the reader angry enough to keep reading, and then they are painfully punished or eliminated, the only thing anyone leaves with is relief from the tension they created in the first place.

We engage in stories because it is a way to hand down everything we have learned as a species in an entertaining way.

Purely evil or unredeemable antagonist certainly have their place. They exist in the world. These are archetypes essential to a story. Carl Jung explained that our ancestral experience has been imprinted upon us as primordial images or archetypes. This means that some things are a part of our human experience that we recognize in characters at a level as deep as our DNA.

So no, I am not suggesting that purely evil characters and the good guy winning should be taken away. But done lazily with no tact seems to add stress and reinforce anger, with no point other than keeping the reader’s attention.

George Lucas successfully gave us purely evil archetypes and antagonists that could change in the same story. Good triumphed over the evil archetype, the antagonist was redeemed, and multiple choices, along with their ramifications, were explored.

In my stories, I want to have a message of hope. Some archetypes represent a personified representation of an aspect of ourselves. The characteristics of greed, hate, or fear, can take the form of a developed character so we can explore them. I am partial to a relatable antagonist that sorts things out by the end. They provide a way out for any readers that may have those tendencies.

The class bully started off scared and insecure, with no tools to deal with those things. The tools they developed work at protecting them, but they come at a price. These kids do not need more cruelty but a map. Otherwise, stories serve as an ominous warning with no way out. If you are like this bad guy, the good guy will get you, and everyone will cheer, so don’t be like that! What is the bully supposed to take from a story like that?

We all have tendencies within us represented by the bad guy. It takes us nowhere to ignore our tendencies while we get satisfaction from beating up on an antagonist who has lost their way. We must embrace that piece within us to support each other in choosing the best path each day. It is our responsibility to the next generation.

So I ask myself these questions:

Is there tactical use of the antagonist? Is there a reason for them? What do they teach? What do they guide the reader to look at within themselves? What are they an example of? What do they teach the protagonist?

Do they only exist to anger everyone so that they cheer harder when the good guy wins, or they’re being punished? Is this just reinforcing justified cruelty or guiding and preparing?

When I am satisfied with the answers, I have a tactical antagonist. A tactical antagonist whose purpose is to guide in navigating evil and provide examples of growing through adversity.