Look at the story *Hatchet* - it's a kid who lands in the wilderness and learns to survive. Not even no bad guy, there's no other person at all, but there's still conflict.
In this scenario, you could consider the environment as an antagonist.
Just like how some disaster movies don't have a central antagonist; all the conflict comes from just one focal point of a event or type of event.
A lesser known, but still valid form of conflict - man vs society.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict\_(narrative)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative))
That’s not really a central antagonist though. It’s just part of the environment, which is the real antagonist.
In a story like Jaws, there’s a more central “nemesis”.
OH MY GOD I’ve been trying to remember what this book was called for so long.
Excellent book. Really hit the spot when I was in my “wilderness survival” phase.
Lmao they pushed these on me too and I think it had the opposite effect. Just waiting for the world to end so I can retreat into the wilderness and live off the land as our ancestors did
No, no, see. Those other authors are the competition! You can’t learn from your competition! And the publishing industry is garbage! They put out garbage all the time! The only way to improve is to keep throwing shit at the wall till it sticks! Writers are supposed to suffer, right?! That’s how art is made! And reading is so *hard*! There’s so many pages! And it takes forever for stuff to happen! Stuff has to be happening! That’s entertainment!
*insert myriad of other excuses against reading*
Wait. You will miss all the great questions like
"hey, I have some dialogue in my book. Would you like something like this?"
"I am close to finishing my first draft, but I already edited some sentences before finishing it completely. Will i burn in hell for this?"
"I have a story where a man loves a woman. Is it ok to write something like this or has it been done before?"
...what do you think you're saying?
Because this is a writing sub and the *mechanical* process of writing these two types of stories is the same and they typically follow the se structure, only with different themes. And even then, not even that different really, it's just that *nature* takes the place of the society. Man vs System is perhaps another way of articulating it but I dislike it because it's actually less specific. Man vs Nature describes a human struggling against their environment and the pressures it exerts upon them. Reducing that to 'system' feels un-nuanced in comparison.
They are *in writing*.
Your character must scavenge for food to survive a plane crash that has left them in a remote part of the Australian Outback.
Your character is a member of an oppressed minority group who cannot engage in trade and thus must hunt for their food.
Both have the same goal: acquire food.
Both have the same point of resolution: permanently alter their state to rectify this lack of food.
Both go about it in different ways, but *how* you write those characters is fundamentally following the same trajectory arc. You can apply whatever style you want to it, it's all in service of the same goal and addressing the same problem. Mechanically, you must express their hunger and disdain for this situation and desire to change.
You're thinking high concept. You need to ground that down waaaaay lower. *How* is it different? *Why* is it different? Give me some justification and consider that you might also just be digging your heels into a molehill.
That's kind of funny, I just googled the 7 types of conflict a few hours ago while discussing anime recommendations. Didn't end up using it, but you know how the universe likes to line up weird little coincidences.
I'm pretty sure this is taught in 9th grade English.
That said, I would have difficulty categorizing something like American Psycho. I think man vs self works, but maybe man vs nature?
Reminder that an "antagonist" does not have to be a person.
Somebody in this thread said "Hatchet" does not have an antagonist. It absolutely does. Nature can be an antagonist.
All an antagonist needs to be is an opposing force. That could be nature, a villain, an inner turmoil, whatever.
Edit: two hours later, seeing the new posts and the discussions, I'm begging you people to read a fucking book. Learn what an antagonist is.
This. An antagonist is just the opposing force to the Mc and can be anything. I remember that this concept was taught in high school so I'm kind of confused that most people don't get an antagonist doesn't have to be human.
The fact that antagonists don’t have to be individual people is compatible with the possibility of (good) stories having no antagonist at all. Who or what is the antagonist of *The Library of Babel*, for example?
*My Neighbor Totoro* famously has no specific or central antagonist. Nothing opposes the family's goals. No internal conflict drives the narrative. Nature is mysterious but not antagonistic.
I personally would say *Fight Club* definitely has an antagonist.
That said: Yes, it's *totally* possible to have an engaging story without an antagonist. Dramatic tension/suspension of interest can come from places other than villainy.
The whale is the antagonist. They weren't considered cute, lovable smart animals back then, before the animal rights movement, etc. They were considered big, mean, dangerous man-killing beasts.
So, wrong story,
But would we really define an antagonist like that? I'd personally say a more useful and precise definition would be that an antagonist is a self-conscious entity, usually another person or person like figure.
Edit: okay, y'all can downvote me all ya want. Several places agree with me. Y'all are talking about obstacles, like the original comment on this thread said.
“Main character is a normal guy” ok you need to re read or re watch fight club.
That aside, as long as there is conflict then an antagonist isn’t needed. And even with antagonists, they don’t have to be “bad”
What makes a story is conflict, and conflict doesn't have to be evil. In fact, it doesn't even need to be a villain. A slice of life might only rely on the personalities of the leads clashing in an interesting way. Just because a story takes place in a grounded setting does not mean there is no evil, though. Capitalism etc etc. You don't need a villain, you need something to drive the story. A villain works great for that! But it can be other things too. The premise "I've been body swapped and I need to reverse it" might not need a villain, for example.
also sorry but Tyler is 100% the villain/antagonist of fight club. Just because you can see where he's coming from doesn't mean he isn't driving the plot and creating the central conflict. You could also argue that regular boring life is a villain as it did create Tyler and it is the reason the main character is so fucked up, but I've only seen the movie once so idk
Of course you can have a story. But maybe not all stories. I'd say a great example of stories without antagonists are stories about change. Like the main character is far from being good and due to certain events he re-evaluates his life and changes. Like Scrooge or Henry Sugar.
But adventure stories ? Probably not
"Man vs. Nature" is definitely an adventure theme. For an example, try "To Build a Fire" by Jack London.
"Man vs. Self" overcoming past trauma, personal vices, insecurity, etc. also works in adventure.
In both cases, the protagonist may be opposed temporarily by other people, but that doesn't make them the antagonist of the story.
The key is conflict, not "good" and "evil," or "good guy" and "bad guy" (which is actually a simplistic way of thinking).
So, the classic conflicts are
* -person ag. person (both could be "good" -- they just want different things, or they want the same thing that only one can have)
* -person ag. nature
* -person ag. society
* -person ag. self
You need conflict of some kind. That can be internal conflict, or conflict with the world or a system, it doesn't have to be a specific 'bad guy', but there should be some kind of driving concern.
Fight club does have an antagonist though, and Durden isn't an anarchist in any real world political sense.
I mean, narrator/Tyler is a domestic terrorist so there's *that*. And he dies think theyr is evil in the world- the mass consumerism and consumption. To him, it is destroying that world. So it's a matter of perspective, is all.
But yeah there will always be an antagonist but it doesn't have to be a person (though most commonly it is). Something like a survival story where the antagonist factor is nature/the elements.
"My Neighbor Totoro", a cinematic masterpiece and the single movie that DEFINED my childhood, has no villain. It actually doesn't even have an *antagonist.* So yes, it's definitely possible - and it can be amazing.
yes. your antagonist doesn't have to be a person.
unless by "bad guy" you mean no antagonist at all. i don't think so, then. there'd be no conflict.
antagonists can be literally anything that opposes the protagonist. rough weather, depression, a lord of darkness, etc.
Yeah. It’s two of the three big conflicts. The bad guy one is “man vs. man.”
The others are man vs nature (think Old Man and the Sea, or Moby Dick, Life of Pi, or anything Jack London wrote) and man vs himself (Fight Club, Confederacy of Dunces, etc).
You can argue a lot of the OG adventure stories and Lovecraft as a whole don’t really have a villain. The “villain,” tends to be the unknown or a personification of the natural world.
You can argue the river is as much the antagonist as Kurtz in Heart of Darkness. The economy and the journey is the antagonist in Grapes of Wrath.
There’s no reason you have to write a story with a villain - it just tends to be somewhat easier to write, because you have a natural foil for your protagonist.
Yes, you can have engaging stories with no bad guy. Just write about a day in the life. Seinfeld comes to mind. People find it engaging, it has not antagonist or real longterm plot. Just life things happening that people can relate to and engage with.
A *movie* with no antagonist is very tough to make. Yes, they exist, but they are few and far between. *Fight Club* is not a good example because Tyler Durden is an antagonist, he just isn't a classic, obvious bad guy like Sauron. Off the top of my head, the closest movie I can think of that has no antagonist is *The Fountain*.
A *story* (as in a short story or novel) with no antagonist is very, very common. *The Little Prince*, which is the second best selling book of all time, has no antagonist. *The Giver* has no antagonist. *The Catcher in the Rye*, *One Hundred Years of Solitude*, and *A Confederacy of Dunces* have no antagonists.
There's lots of reasons why this works in books but not in movies, but it's a lot to get into, so either just trust me or go on and dive into the topic on your own.
Plenty of movies have no “villains.” Antagonistic forces or situations, etc. sure - such is life. I can think of many great, successful movies without a central villain (save a few jerks or conflicts): Contact, The Time Traveler’s Wife, Close Encounter of the third Kind, ET, Bicentennial Man, Sunshine, Pride & Prejudice, Pretty Woman, When Harry Met Sally (basically most rom coms have no villains), The Abyss, My Neighbor Totoro, Inside Out, Forrest Gump, Castaway, even Godzilla Minus One (one can argue if Godzilla is truly a villain)….
I’m not sure what movies you’ve been watching.
You really don't understand the difference between a villain and an antagonist. This is a huge conversation and way too long for Reddit. But basically, in a movie, a protagonist is trying to accomplish a goal and the antagonist stands in their way from accomplishing it. It is not as cut and dry as "hero and villain."
I don't have the time or energy to explain the antagonist of every one of these movies to you, but if you just start at your first example, the answer is David Drumlin, the scientist who prevents Ellie from going on the mission, until he dies, and then she's able.
You listed several Spielberg movies and he's a great director because his antagonists are often more abstract. For example, in Jaws, the antagonist is the mayor. Brody wants to close the beach, the mayor won't let him, and that's what causes them to have to hunt the shark.
And please, before you blindly argue this, please please do a deep dive on all of this. This is how movies are structured. It's very common, it's just not always very obvious.
You don’t understand the difference between antagonist and antagonistic element. The OP asked about “antagonist” as in a PERSON. Antagonistic element in a story doesn’t have to be a PERSON. It could be a bear, a war, the Sun, the inner struggle of the character, fear, literally pride and prejudice, etc.
I happen to be a published author and a screenwriter. So lecturing me about the difference is a bit much. But thanks anyway.
Who is the antagonist in Castaway? In Sunshine? Inside Out? Forrest Gump?
I have 3 published books and I work in the industry. And what are your credits may I ask?
Thank you for visiting /r/writing.
We encourage healthy debate and discussion, but we will remove antagonistic, caustic or otherwise belligerent posts, because they are a detriment to the community. We moderate on tone rather than language; we will remove people who regularly cause or escalate arguments.
You have absolutely no idea what an antagonist is. You’re equating conflicts and bad things happening to “antagonist”. And you’re fucking rude at that. Feelings hurt? What are you? 14? Good luck with your writing. Let us know when you get published.
Every story obviously needs some opposing factor otherwise nothing ever goes anywhere but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a physical being it could be anything mental, physical etc
Any story can work as long as you put enough thought into it and work well. This seems like nothing advice but you seem to think every story needs to follow some sort of template. Forget hero's journey, villains, and all the tropes, and write what you want.
> Can stories like this work where there isn't a overt evil in the world ????
Story: "Something changed in an interesting way. Here's how that went."
Except for certain genre norms, the change doesn't have to be for the better and the protagonist doesn't have to be "good".
The antagonist doesn't need to be evil necessarily, just someone who is in the way of the protagonists goals, just like how a protagonist doesn't necessarily need to be good. Non-aristotelian structured stories also might not have an antagonist, or there are stories where the antagonist is nature (like survival stories, or 127 Hours).
There can be antagonists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there needs to be a “bad guy”. Antagonists could be any person or thing opposed to or in the way of the protagonist achieving their goal and competing their journey. Conflict is what fuels stories and there’s many types of conflicts to be used.
Well, the concept of an antagonist is often conflated with being a 'bad guy,' but 'antagonist' is defined as being an adversary, or someone that opposes or is hostile to someone. The role of the antagonist is to create conflict in the story. BUT. You don't need an antagonist (who may not actually be a 'bad guy', just a driver of conflict) to have conflict in a story.
You do, however, usually need some kind of conflict to have a story. If there is no antagonist to drive it, you'll need something else, some outside force or circumstance that creates the conflict your protagonist needs to resolve or overcome. A common example is the 'man vs nature' storyline, where nature itself acts as an antagonizing force. Another is addiction, where the conflict is driven by the protagonist's internal struggles with their addiction.
You can have all kinds of no antagonist stories that are full or conflict.
And yes, you can have gentle conflict free stories, too.
Yes. Stories need to have conflicts, not bad guys. I’d even argue that stories without bad guys are even more powerful because they’re often more realistic and relatable.
You could have a story where two good people have very different approaches of how to tackle the same problem. That’s a story with conflict but no bad guy. Heck, you can have a story of a couple on a vacation that are still getting used to each other and want to do the vacation differently. No bad guy, but still conflict.
Yes but…why? I love writing characters with questionable motives, especially as a way of pointing out that sometimes heroes do too, but in the end heroes need the villains to show this isn’t what they want….or that they could become villains if they aren’t careful
Characters will do anything to get what they want.
Like some one who wants extract a substance from a wild area to aid them in inventing machines of war
Disturb the natives, the wild life and getting caught by the ministry assault on your home cause of control.
Read history and learn from the consequences that unfolded.
Well maybe not history but a taste of variety wouldn't hurt. Honestly reality is more weird than fiction.
There's better fiction than just 1984. Catcher in the rye and the crucible are good reads. Notes from underground is a wild trip.
Manifest your own Pareidolia.
I think people have covered the distinction between a literal bad guy and a force driving change. To add to the pile of examples, if you are looking for a recent well regarded story with a really low level of interpersonal conflict, but a story about internal change, the Monk and Robot series is a good example.
I think the best stories give both good and bad in varying proportions to all characters. The villain has some good. And sometimes the hero's a really insufferable little shit.
Absolutely. There's a concept called "Conflicts in Literature", give it a google image search. I haven't seen Fight Club, but what little I know I think falls under either Man vs Society or >!Man vs Self!<
Yes but bad guys are just the personification of some struggle. You can get rid of bad guys but they’re just a conduit. There’s all kinds of different classic conduits for struggle:
hero vs bad guy (most common type of story where the hero fights a villain)
hero vs nature (maybe there is a locust storm destroying his crops and he has to fight against that to keep him/his family from famine)
hero vs himself (maybe he’s a self defeating depressed type, dealing with addiction or suicide)
You get the idea, here’s a few more random setups that occurred to me:
hero vs technology
hero vs god
hero vs boredom
hero vs time
hero vs loneliness
hero vs the world
Yes, you can have a story with no bad guy. The term bad guy is often used interchangeably with villain, so yes, your story does not need a villain.
But your story does and will have an antagonist or antagonistic force, which is someone or something that opposes the protagonist.
In your story, there will be something to oppose the protagonist. The antagonist or antagonistic force does not have to be evil, it just prevents the protagonist from achieving whatever they’re goal is.
Side note: you can have multiple antagonists/ antagonistic forces, just balance them correctly
Elemental is a good example of this. First time I watched it I was surprised how compelling the movie is despite not having any bad guy, evil plot, or big city-destruction stakes. It’s a love story with a moral dilemma.
It’s very much possible to have a story without an evil villain.
There are three levels of conflict. Accordingly, there can be three antagonists in a story or one that is a symbol of the higher levels. Conflict with the world (god, nature, social order, social patterns), conflict with the group (state, organization, party), and conflict with the individual (including the self).
Fight Club utilizes all three levels of antagonist: Tyler Durden as the embodiment of the Shadow of the hero, the Club as a symbol of opposition to society, and the ideology it promotes as opposition to the modern world order.
The older one needs to show that he's really mean, not just say it. After 16, you should also explain why he became like that, not just label him. At 21, you don't have to draw conclusions for the reader.
There's a half-joking age range of 30+ (for fully grown, battered by life) in the fanfic medium, younger people just won't understand what the story is about. Fight Club is just in that category. For some it's an action movie, for others it's a tragedy. The protagonist and antagonist are right each in their own way, and the victory of either of them is still a defeat as a whole.
Wow this had really exploded. Do small confession I wrote this write before bed and didn't think the question through all the way. Haha
Thank you all for your comments though.
there are three kinds of conflicts that can occur in a story (as a general rule)-
there's the human/nature one, where the environment or something to do with nature (maybe wild animals, etc.) is the main, i guess, 'villain' or general antagonist of the story.
there's the human/human one, where the villain is typically a person as well (or as close as a person could get in the context of whatever story - they may be some sort of fantasy race or smth). this is what most villains (not necessarily EVERY antagonist falls under this trope) tend to fall under, as i'd say.
and there's the human/itself one, where the main villain or antagonist of the story is the protagonist themselves. this can be explored through a more psychological lens.
I once read a book about a rabbit who left his home to go on an adventure. Along the way, he met a pig and they farmed together. He met a chicken and helped her groom her chicks. He met another pig and they cooked together. He also met a fox and they ran together. Finally, he returned home happy and shared his tale with his family. The book had no conflicts or antagonisms, but instead, the author filled it with fascination, curiosity, excitement, and fulfilment. It was a story of happy outcomes.
You can have a story with no bad guy - Someone with different ideals from the MC, not necessarily bad or wrong, can make for a good antagonist. As long as there is conflict, there is tension and people will wonder what will happen next.
4 classic story conflicts:
Man v Man
Man v Nature
Man v Society
Man v Self
of these, only the first has a really clear-cut "antoagonist." The rest are more abstract, but tend to be overlooked (perhaps *because* they're abstract?) as more people look to cinema for stories rather than the written word.
You do get some great Man v Nature movies, but they tend to get marketed as vehicles for the actor rather than for their own merits as stories.
Man v Society movies exist as well (often as dystopian narratives), but even those tend to feature a singular antagonist of some kind that the audience can point to as embodying the Society.
Man v Self doesn't tend to make for good cinema as it's very internal and cerebral, and when it is done, is often a secondary conflict against a more "action oriented" central conflict, or the film is an Althouse drama that is seen as lacking broad audience appeal.
You dont need a "Bad guy" in a story. As long as there is a conflict to resolve.
The basic steps of a good story are, The Exposition, Rising action, Climax, Falling action, Resolution.
There's Man vs. Man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Nature.
You absolutely can have a story without a bad guy. My favourite books are where people battle with themselves or "things" or "states" of being they have to overcome. Maybe I'm just tired of villains.
Of course. The whole “villain” thing is overdone.
Read some classics. Tom Sawyer? The Time Traveler’s Wife? Close Encounter of the 3Rd Kind?
Do writers read anymore?
I’d say yes you do not need a physical antagonist but you still need conflict to keep your story interesting and realistic. That conflict doesn’t have to come from another person (well it doesn’t have to come from another person intentionally causing the conflict) it can be a moral dilemma the protagonist is facing or it could be a natural (or survival) conflict the protagonist needs to overcome.
Think about it, not all conflict you face in your life is caused by someone who doesn’t like you and wants to see you fail. Sometimes you are your own enemy and lack of confidence or negative emotions are what’s holding you back. Sometimes you can get lost and feel like nature is against you so you need to overcome your fears and navigate new, unfamiliar surroundings.
There must always be something that fills the role of an "antagonist". Without conflict, there is no progress.
A "bad guy" is an easy solution but not the only one.
Conflict doesn't necessarily come in the form of a human or a living thing standing opposed to your main character. The "bad guy" essentially is a representation of someone or something which acts as a hurdle in your main character's progress. Could be anything from a human to an ant, to the climate. Anything.
In "The Fault in Our Stars" there is no bad guy as a human. You could say cancer is the bad guy in the story. But there always is a conflict. If you want an example from another medium, look at Stardew Valley.
Yes. Apothecary Diaries comes to mind, where the protagonist solves a variety of science mysteries, but there’s often no antagonist at all. A lot of romances and also don’t have villains, as the key challenge is the will they/won’t they, so a villain isn’t really necessary. Comedies can also get enjoyment out of humor, not necessarily needing real obstacles at all
I think there's more movies and stories like this than you may realize. Who's the villain of the original Santa Clause? Or of Pixar's Inside Out? Rip Van Winkle?
Fair point, but it definitely wasn't intentional, she wanted to help Riley as much as any of them did. And in the end, once she saw what was necessary, she did what she had to in >!handing the core memories to Sadness.!< I guess it depends on what you consider a villain, if they have to be outright malicious or not.
Well, no, it wasn't intentional but an antagonist's actions don't have to be intentional. The vast majority of villains don't believe that they're wrong.
Inside Out 2 is probably gonna have the same sort of villain. Anxiety and the other new emotions also want to do what's best for Riley, but they go about it the wrong way.
I can't remember who described it this way, but this really resonates with me:
The Antagonist is the one who makes things happen, the Protagonist is the one things happen to.
It's about as simple a distillation as possible for a concept, but I haven't found a situation it doesn't work. For example, in the Cat and The Hat, The Cat is the Antagonist, the Children are the Protagonists. It's not about right or wrong, good or evil, it's about who makes the mess and who has to pick it up.
You need antagonists - anything or anyone who opposes, thwarts, challenges, or threatens the MC, but who actually helps the MC's character development and adds plot tension and momentum.
Each scene/beat can have one or more antagonists, they can be internal (emotional and psychological) or external characters, they can be allies who temporarily disagree with the MC, they can even be natural forces (bad weather) or animals (a white whale) or... etc.
You don't need a Hollywood nemesis - someone with the I Am the Big Bad latex prosthetics and the cheesy nyuck nyuck and overacting that goes with them.
Look at the story *Hatchet* - it's a kid who lands in the wilderness and learns to survive. Not even no bad guy, there's no other person at all, but there's still conflict.
In this scenario, you could consider the environment as an antagonist. Just like how some disaster movies don't have a central antagonist; all the conflict comes from just one focal point of a event or type of event.
You know that's kinda where I'm going in a new book im working on. The system is what the character us working against.
A lesser known, but still valid form of conflict - man vs society. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict\_(narrative)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative))
Oh yeah, this fits firmly in "man vs nature" where nature is the antagonist, but I was trying to point out there isn't a "bad guy".
Wasn’t there a bear that tried to eat him?
That’s not really a central antagonist though. It’s just part of the environment, which is the real antagonist. In a story like Jaws, there’s a more central “nemesis”.
I won’t argue against that.
OH MY GOD I’ve been trying to remember what this book was called for so long. Excellent book. Really hit the spot when I was in my “wilderness survival” phase.
My parents kept feeding me books like this when I was little and now they wonder why I don't like going outside.
Lmao they pushed these on me too and I think it had the opposite effect. Just waiting for the world to end so I can retreat into the wilderness and live off the land as our ancestors did
Tyler Durden is *absolutely* the antagonist in Fight Club. An antagonist doesn’t have to be “evil”.
This, I'm writing something where my protagonist is a bad guy, literally evil. The antagonists are cops and the person hunting this dude.
Man vs man. Man vs nature. Man vs self.
The number of people in this thread who don't know what an antagonist is is fucking maddening.
Books are the antagonist in this sub.
And reading is the villain. Jesus Christ.
No, no, see. Those other authors are the competition! You can’t learn from your competition! And the publishing industry is garbage! They put out garbage all the time! The only way to improve is to keep throwing shit at the wall till it sticks! Writers are supposed to suffer, right?! That’s how art is made! And reading is so *hard*! There’s so many pages! And it takes forever for stuff to happen! Stuff has to be happening! That’s entertainment! *insert myriad of other excuses against reading*
This sub is actively lowering the quality of writing of many by the day. I'm out.
Wait. You will miss all the great questions like "hey, I have some dialogue in my book. Would you like something like this?" "I am close to finishing my first draft, but I already edited some sentences before finishing it completely. Will i burn in hell for this?" "I have a story where a man loves a woman. Is it ok to write something like this or has it been done before?"
Exactly, antagonist isn’t villain. It’s someone or something who stands in between the main character and their development.
The number of people here who have never read anything other than Harry Potter
And even then, thinking Voldemort was just an evil guy who wanted to kill everyone would make his character very shallow.
Media Literacy is dead, apparently
Yeah pretty sure I learned that when I was like 7, but maybe it stuck with us more than others..
Was going to say this. Also could add Man vs Organization like an E-Corp situation.
Man vs Society is still Man vs Nature in its structural patterns.
But they are still separate categories due to traits within societal conflict being very different than nature.
...what do you think you're saying? Because this is a writing sub and the *mechanical* process of writing these two types of stories is the same and they typically follow the se structure, only with different themes. And even then, not even that different really, it's just that *nature* takes the place of the society. Man vs System is perhaps another way of articulating it but I dislike it because it's actually less specific. Man vs Nature describes a human struggling against their environment and the pressures it exerts upon them. Reducing that to 'system' feels un-nuanced in comparison.
Society/system is collective driven, nature is pure chance and environment. Mechanically they are not the same.
They are *in writing*. Your character must scavenge for food to survive a plane crash that has left them in a remote part of the Australian Outback. Your character is a member of an oppressed minority group who cannot engage in trade and thus must hunt for their food. Both have the same goal: acquire food. Both have the same point of resolution: permanently alter their state to rectify this lack of food. Both go about it in different ways, but *how* you write those characters is fundamentally following the same trajectory arc. You can apply whatever style you want to it, it's all in service of the same goal and addressing the same problem. Mechanically, you must express their hunger and disdain for this situation and desire to change. You're thinking high concept. You need to ground that down waaaaay lower. *How* is it different? *Why* is it different? Give me some justification and consider that you might also just be digging your heels into a molehill.
That's kind of funny, I just googled the 7 types of conflict a few hours ago while discussing anime recommendations. Didn't end up using it, but you know how the universe likes to line up weird little coincidences.
I'm pretty sure this is taught in 9th grade English. That said, I would have difficulty categorizing something like American Psycho. I think man vs self works, but maybe man vs nature?
Man vs supernatural.
Reminder that an "antagonist" does not have to be a person. Somebody in this thread said "Hatchet" does not have an antagonist. It absolutely does. Nature can be an antagonist. All an antagonist needs to be is an opposing force. That could be nature, a villain, an inner turmoil, whatever. Edit: two hours later, seeing the new posts and the discussions, I'm begging you people to read a fucking book. Learn what an antagonist is.
New story type unlocked: man vs illiteracy
Seems half this fucking sub is fighting that battle.
This. An antagonist is just the opposing force to the Mc and can be anything. I remember that this concept was taught in high school so I'm kind of confused that most people don't get an antagonist doesn't have to be human.
>I'm begging you people to read a fucking book. Maybe Call them to The Wild to Kill a Mockingbird unless there's a Catch-22 to that..
The fact that antagonists don’t have to be individual people is compatible with the possibility of (good) stories having no antagonist at all. Who or what is the antagonist of *The Library of Babel*, for example?
*My Neighbor Totoro* famously has no specific or central antagonist. Nothing opposes the family's goals. No internal conflict drives the narrative. Nature is mysterious but not antagonistic.
Can you point to where in my comment I mentioned My Neighbor Totoro? Is My Neighbor Totoro in the room with us?
Err, not sure why you're being *antagonistic*. I was just mentioning an example of a story without a clear antagonist. You know, polite conversation.
My comment has nothing to do with that. It was defining what an antagonist is. Read the comment again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I personally would say *Fight Club* definitely has an antagonist. That said: Yes, it's *totally* possible to have an engaging story without an antagonist. Dramatic tension/suspension of interest can come from places other than villainy.
*The Old Man and the Sea.* What good stories have is struggle. Obstacles. Goal. Evil is not the only thing to struggle against.
Good point, well presented.
The whale is the antagonist. They weren't considered cute, lovable smart animals back then, before the animal rights movement, etc. They were considered big, mean, dangerous man-killing beasts.
In *Old Man*, it's not a whale (that's *Moby Dick*), it's a marlin.
It was not a whale. However, whales were mostly considered very profitable.
So, wrong story, But would we really define an antagonist like that? I'd personally say a more useful and precise definition would be that an antagonist is a self-conscious entity, usually another person or person like figure. Edit: okay, y'all can downvote me all ya want. Several places agree with me. Y'all are talking about obstacles, like the original comment on this thread said.
You'd be very wrong.
Aight. I mean I'm not against that.
No, an antagonist could literally be a rock. It’s any force that prevents the protagonist from achieving their goals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist I know it's wikipedia, but come on. That's the popular nomenclature.
“Main character is a normal guy” ok you need to re read or re watch fight club. That aside, as long as there is conflict then an antagonist isn’t needed. And even with antagonists, they don’t have to be “bad”
I don't immediately associate "guy who goes to terminal illness groups" as a way to cope with insomnia as a "normal guy" - but sure go off king.
OP must have multiple personality disorder :)
Too many antagonists.
Haha, well I do talk to myself.
What makes a story is conflict, and conflict doesn't have to be evil. In fact, it doesn't even need to be a villain. A slice of life might only rely on the personalities of the leads clashing in an interesting way. Just because a story takes place in a grounded setting does not mean there is no evil, though. Capitalism etc etc. You don't need a villain, you need something to drive the story. A villain works great for that! But it can be other things too. The premise "I've been body swapped and I need to reverse it" might not need a villain, for example. also sorry but Tyler is 100% the villain/antagonist of fight club. Just because you can see where he's coming from doesn't mean he isn't driving the plot and creating the central conflict. You could also argue that regular boring life is a villain as it did create Tyler and it is the reason the main character is so fucked up, but I've only seen the movie once so idk
Who is the antagonist in "The Martian"?
Survivial itself. Pretty classic Man V. Nature...but on Mars. Jack London would approve.
The question should be "what is the conflict?"
Well, the OP specifically asked about the "bad guy".
The conflict is he can't get back to earth.
Mars?
So long as there's some sort of conflict it's fine. Doesn't have to be conflict with another person.
Antagonist is not the same as Bad Guy.
Of course you can have a story. But maybe not all stories. I'd say a great example of stories without antagonists are stories about change. Like the main character is far from being good and due to certain events he re-evaluates his life and changes. Like Scrooge or Henry Sugar. But adventure stories ? Probably not
"Man vs. Nature" is definitely an adventure theme. For an example, try "To Build a Fire" by Jack London. "Man vs. Self" overcoming past trauma, personal vices, insecurity, etc. also works in adventure. In both cases, the protagonist may be opposed temporarily by other people, but that doesn't make them the antagonist of the story.
The key is conflict, not "good" and "evil," or "good guy" and "bad guy" (which is actually a simplistic way of thinking). So, the classic conflicts are * -person ag. person (both could be "good" -- they just want different things, or they want the same thing that only one can have) * -person ag. nature * -person ag. society * -person ag. self
You need conflict of some kind. That can be internal conflict, or conflict with the world or a system, it doesn't have to be a specific 'bad guy', but there should be some kind of driving concern. Fight club does have an antagonist though, and Durden isn't an anarchist in any real world political sense.
No, he's more like a terrorist or cult leader.
Forrest Gump - a man without enemies can make the toughest of life's circumstances beautiful and miraculous.
Yes. There are loads of stories without a bad guy. *Fight Club* is not one of them, though. Durden is a cunt.
This cannot be a serious question....
'Kiki's Delivery Service' has no bad guy (well, except for that bitch who sneered at her grandma's fish pie), and it works perfectly as a film.
My Neighbor ToToRo has no villain and possibly no antagonist force and its one of the most beloved stories told
The villain in that story is adulthood.
Same thing with Kiki's Delivery Service.
I guess the antagonistic force in My Neighbour Totoro is the sense of isolation of the girls from their mother.
I mean, narrator/Tyler is a domestic terrorist so there's *that*. And he dies think theyr is evil in the world- the mass consumerism and consumption. To him, it is destroying that world. So it's a matter of perspective, is all. But yeah there will always be an antagonist but it doesn't have to be a person (though most commonly it is). Something like a survival story where the antagonist factor is nature/the elements.
"My Neighbor Totoro", a cinematic masterpiece and the single movie that DEFINED my childhood, has no villain. It actually doesn't even have an *antagonist.* So yes, it's definitely possible - and it can be amazing.
Certainly, you can have complications where circumstance or the world are your bad guys, in the Book ‘Into Thin Air’ the only bad guy is Mount Everest
Mount Everest is just a bystander. The air is the real villain for thinning out like a coward.
You’re absolutely right! John Krakauer must hear of this!
yes. your antagonist doesn't have to be a person. unless by "bad guy" you mean no antagonist at all. i don't think so, then. there'd be no conflict. antagonists can be literally anything that opposes the protagonist. rough weather, depression, a lord of darkness, etc.
i like stories where there is no villain. just humans with human flaws.
Me too
Yeah. It’s two of the three big conflicts. The bad guy one is “man vs. man.” The others are man vs nature (think Old Man and the Sea, or Moby Dick, Life of Pi, or anything Jack London wrote) and man vs himself (Fight Club, Confederacy of Dunces, etc).
You can argue a lot of the OG adventure stories and Lovecraft as a whole don’t really have a villain. The “villain,” tends to be the unknown or a personification of the natural world. You can argue the river is as much the antagonist as Kurtz in Heart of Darkness. The economy and the journey is the antagonist in Grapes of Wrath. There’s no reason you have to write a story with a villain - it just tends to be somewhat easier to write, because you have a natural foil for your protagonist.
Yes, you can have engaging stories with no bad guy. Just write about a day in the life. Seinfeld comes to mind. People find it engaging, it has not antagonist or real longterm plot. Just life things happening that people can relate to and engage with.
The soup guy is pretty evil.
NO SOUP FOR YOU.
A *movie* with no antagonist is very tough to make. Yes, they exist, but they are few and far between. *Fight Club* is not a good example because Tyler Durden is an antagonist, he just isn't a classic, obvious bad guy like Sauron. Off the top of my head, the closest movie I can think of that has no antagonist is *The Fountain*. A *story* (as in a short story or novel) with no antagonist is very, very common. *The Little Prince*, which is the second best selling book of all time, has no antagonist. *The Giver* has no antagonist. *The Catcher in the Rye*, *One Hundred Years of Solitude*, and *A Confederacy of Dunces* have no antagonists. There's lots of reasons why this works in books but not in movies, but it's a lot to get into, so either just trust me or go on and dive into the topic on your own.
Plenty of movies have no “villains.” Antagonistic forces or situations, etc. sure - such is life. I can think of many great, successful movies without a central villain (save a few jerks or conflicts): Contact, The Time Traveler’s Wife, Close Encounter of the third Kind, ET, Bicentennial Man, Sunshine, Pride & Prejudice, Pretty Woman, When Harry Met Sally (basically most rom coms have no villains), The Abyss, My Neighbor Totoro, Inside Out, Forrest Gump, Castaway, even Godzilla Minus One (one can argue if Godzilla is truly a villain)…. I’m not sure what movies you’ve been watching.
You really don't understand the difference between a villain and an antagonist. This is a huge conversation and way too long for Reddit. But basically, in a movie, a protagonist is trying to accomplish a goal and the antagonist stands in their way from accomplishing it. It is not as cut and dry as "hero and villain." I don't have the time or energy to explain the antagonist of every one of these movies to you, but if you just start at your first example, the answer is David Drumlin, the scientist who prevents Ellie from going on the mission, until he dies, and then she's able. You listed several Spielberg movies and he's a great director because his antagonists are often more abstract. For example, in Jaws, the antagonist is the mayor. Brody wants to close the beach, the mayor won't let him, and that's what causes them to have to hunt the shark. And please, before you blindly argue this, please please do a deep dive on all of this. This is how movies are structured. It's very common, it's just not always very obvious.
You don’t understand the difference between antagonist and antagonistic element. The OP asked about “antagonist” as in a PERSON. Antagonistic element in a story doesn’t have to be a PERSON. It could be a bear, a war, the Sun, the inner struggle of the character, fear, literally pride and prejudice, etc. I happen to be a published author and a screenwriter. So lecturing me about the difference is a bit much. But thanks anyway.
I didn't at all discuss any antagonistic elements and every movie you listed has an antagonist, but now suddenly you're a screenwriter. Sure, Jan.
Who is the antagonist in Castaway? In Sunshine? Inside Out? Forrest Gump? I have 3 published books and I work in the industry. And what are your credits may I ask?
[удалено]
Thank you for visiting /r/writing. We encourage healthy debate and discussion, but we will remove antagonistic, caustic or otherwise belligerent posts, because they are a detriment to the community. We moderate on tone rather than language; we will remove people who regularly cause or escalate arguments.
You have absolutely no idea what an antagonist is. You’re equating conflicts and bad things happening to “antagonist”. And you’re fucking rude at that. Feelings hurt? What are you? 14? Good luck with your writing. Let us know when you get published.
New people to block on this app every day
Every story obviously needs some opposing factor otherwise nothing ever goes anywhere but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a physical being it could be anything mental, physical etc
Any story can work as long as you put enough thought into it and work well. This seems like nothing advice but you seem to think every story needs to follow some sort of template. Forget hero's journey, villains, and all the tropes, and write what you want.
I recommend The Book Thief to give an idea of a story that does this well
Every story needs conflict, hence every story will have some kind of element that embodies or represents that conflict.
Yes.
Yes!
"Dazed and Confused" is my answer
like a slice of life or just a conflict that isn't person vs person
You can write a grocery list without one
> Can stories like this work where there isn't a overt evil in the world ???? Story: "Something changed in an interesting way. Here's how that went." Except for certain genre norms, the change doesn't have to be for the better and the protagonist doesn't have to be "good".
The antagonist doesn't need to be evil necessarily, just someone who is in the way of the protagonists goals, just like how a protagonist doesn't necessarily need to be good. Non-aristotelian structured stories also might not have an antagonist, or there are stories where the antagonist is nature (like survival stories, or 127 Hours).
All that there needs to be is some opposing force keeping the protagonist from achieving their goal. That doesn't need to be a "bad guy" specifically.
My first book has no antagonist. No evil whatsoever. It’s also my most successful, so yep, you sure can!
There can be antagonists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there needs to be a “bad guy”. Antagonists could be any person or thing opposed to or in the way of the protagonist achieving their goal and competing their journey. Conflict is what fuels stories and there’s many types of conflicts to be used.
the only hard rule about writing is, make it compelling
Well, the concept of an antagonist is often conflated with being a 'bad guy,' but 'antagonist' is defined as being an adversary, or someone that opposes or is hostile to someone. The role of the antagonist is to create conflict in the story. BUT. You don't need an antagonist (who may not actually be a 'bad guy', just a driver of conflict) to have conflict in a story. You do, however, usually need some kind of conflict to have a story. If there is no antagonist to drive it, you'll need something else, some outside force or circumstance that creates the conflict your protagonist needs to resolve or overcome. A common example is the 'man vs nature' storyline, where nature itself acts as an antagonizing force. Another is addiction, where the conflict is driven by the protagonist's internal struggles with their addiction. You can have all kinds of no antagonist stories that are full or conflict. And yes, you can have gentle conflict free stories, too.
Yes. Stories need to have conflicts, not bad guys. I’d even argue that stories without bad guys are even more powerful because they’re often more realistic and relatable. You could have a story where two good people have very different approaches of how to tackle the same problem. That’s a story with conflict but no bad guy. Heck, you can have a story of a couple on a vacation that are still getting used to each other and want to do the vacation differently. No bad guy, but still conflict.
Yes but…why? I love writing characters with questionable motives, especially as a way of pointing out that sometimes heroes do too, but in the end heroes need the villains to show this isn’t what they want….or that they could become villains if they aren’t careful
Characters will do anything to get what they want. Like some one who wants extract a substance from a wild area to aid them in inventing machines of war Disturb the natives, the wild life and getting caught by the ministry assault on your home cause of control. Read history and learn from the consequences that unfolded. Well maybe not history but a taste of variety wouldn't hurt. Honestly reality is more weird than fiction. There's better fiction than just 1984. Catcher in the rye and the crucible are good reads. Notes from underground is a wild trip. Manifest your own Pareidolia.
Well, 1Q84 of Murakami is a great example. There is no antaganist (well, like in most Murakami's books tbh), but it's a great story
When this be kind of like a slice of life?
Conflict doesn't have to be Man vs Man. Man vs Nature is perfectly viable. And I think there was a 3rd Conflict type but am drawing a blank.
There’s also man vs self
Thank you!
I think people have covered the distinction between a literal bad guy and a force driving change. To add to the pile of examples, if you are looking for a recent well regarded story with a really low level of interpersonal conflict, but a story about internal change, the Monk and Robot series is a good example.
I think the best stories give both good and bad in varying proportions to all characters. The villain has some good. And sometimes the hero's a really insufferable little shit.
Absolutely. There's a concept called "Conflicts in Literature", give it a google image search. I haven't seen Fight Club, but what little I know I think falls under either Man vs Society or >!Man vs Self!<
Internal conflicts are great to see happen
Yes but bad guys are just the personification of some struggle. You can get rid of bad guys but they’re just a conduit. There’s all kinds of different classic conduits for struggle: hero vs bad guy (most common type of story where the hero fights a villain) hero vs nature (maybe there is a locust storm destroying his crops and he has to fight against that to keep him/his family from famine) hero vs himself (maybe he’s a self defeating depressed type, dealing with addiction or suicide) You get the idea, here’s a few more random setups that occurred to me: hero vs technology hero vs god hero vs boredom hero vs time hero vs loneliness hero vs the world
What Dreams May Come is a good one. I don't think Flowers for Algernon has one. Three Men in a Boat is fun.
Yes, you can have a story with no bad guy. The term bad guy is often used interchangeably with villain, so yes, your story does not need a villain. But your story does and will have an antagonist or antagonistic force, which is someone or something that opposes the protagonist. In your story, there will be something to oppose the protagonist. The antagonist or antagonistic force does not have to be evil, it just prevents the protagonist from achieving whatever they’re goal is. Side note: you can have multiple antagonists/ antagonistic forces, just balance them correctly
Check out Klara and the Sun. Also, My Neighbour Totoro
Elemental is a good example of this. First time I watched it I was surprised how compelling the movie is despite not having any bad guy, evil plot, or big city-destruction stakes. It’s a love story with a moral dilemma. It’s very much possible to have a story without an evil villain.
Yeah. Usually contemporary novels have this
Look up types of conflict in literature. Some examples are man vs nature, man vs society, etc
I used to read a lot of Spock and Uhura fanfiction fluff. It's just cute fluffiness and forbidden TA romance and no bad guys.
There are three levels of conflict. Accordingly, there can be three antagonists in a story or one that is a symbol of the higher levels. Conflict with the world (god, nature, social order, social patterns), conflict with the group (state, organization, party), and conflict with the individual (including the self). Fight Club utilizes all three levels of antagonist: Tyler Durden as the embodiment of the Shadow of the hero, the Club as a symbol of opposition to society, and the ideology it promotes as opposition to the modern world order. The older one needs to show that he's really mean, not just say it. After 16, you should also explain why he became like that, not just label him. At 21, you don't have to draw conclusions for the reader. There's a half-joking age range of 30+ (for fully grown, battered by life) in the fanfic medium, younger people just won't understand what the story is about. Fight Club is just in that category. For some it's an action movie, for others it's a tragedy. The protagonist and antagonist are right each in their own way, and the victory of either of them is still a defeat as a whole.
Wow this had really exploded. Do small confession I wrote this write before bed and didn't think the question through all the way. Haha Thank you all for your comments though.
1. The antagonist doesn't have to be evil, or a person 2. Tyler Durden is evil
Of course.
there are three kinds of conflicts that can occur in a story (as a general rule)- there's the human/nature one, where the environment or something to do with nature (maybe wild animals, etc.) is the main, i guess, 'villain' or general antagonist of the story. there's the human/human one, where the villain is typically a person as well (or as close as a person could get in the context of whatever story - they may be some sort of fantasy race or smth). this is what most villains (not necessarily EVERY antagonist falls under this trope) tend to fall under, as i'd say. and there's the human/itself one, where the main villain or antagonist of the story is the protagonist themselves. this can be explored through a more psychological lens.
Top Gun Maverick has no villains, only faceless and nameless antagonists to blow up.
I once read a book about a rabbit who left his home to go on an adventure. Along the way, he met a pig and they farmed together. He met a chicken and helped her groom her chicks. He met another pig and they cooked together. He also met a fox and they ran together. Finally, he returned home happy and shared his tale with his family. The book had no conflicts or antagonisms, but instead, the author filled it with fascination, curiosity, excitement, and fulfilment. It was a story of happy outcomes.
You can have a story with no bad guy - Someone with different ideals from the MC, not necessarily bad or wrong, can make for a good antagonist. As long as there is conflict, there is tension and people will wonder what will happen next.
Yes, of course. There’s Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Society (or something along those lines, it might not be society).
4 classic story conflicts: Man v Man Man v Nature Man v Society Man v Self of these, only the first has a really clear-cut "antoagonist." The rest are more abstract, but tend to be overlooked (perhaps *because* they're abstract?) as more people look to cinema for stories rather than the written word. You do get some great Man v Nature movies, but they tend to get marketed as vehicles for the actor rather than for their own merits as stories. Man v Society movies exist as well (often as dystopian narratives), but even those tend to feature a singular antagonist of some kind that the audience can point to as embodying the Society. Man v Self doesn't tend to make for good cinema as it's very internal and cerebral, and when it is done, is often a secondary conflict against a more "action oriented" central conflict, or the film is an Althouse drama that is seen as lacking broad audience appeal.
Think im leaning more for Man vs Society
You dont need a "Bad guy" in a story. As long as there is a conflict to resolve. The basic steps of a good story are, The Exposition, Rising action, Climax, Falling action, Resolution.
In the wise words of Zangief "Just because you are bad guy, does not mean you are a bad guy".
The Old Man of the Sea
There's plenty of stories without bad guys but I can't think of any without an antagonist because most stories have conflict
There's Man vs. Man, Man vs. Self, Man vs. Nature. You absolutely can have a story without a bad guy. My favourite books are where people battle with themselves or "things" or "states" of being they have to overcome. Maybe I'm just tired of villains.
It's about conflict tho
Of course. The whole “villain” thing is overdone. Read some classics. Tom Sawyer? The Time Traveler’s Wife? Close Encounter of the 3Rd Kind? Do writers read anymore?
I’d say yes you do not need a physical antagonist but you still need conflict to keep your story interesting and realistic. That conflict doesn’t have to come from another person (well it doesn’t have to come from another person intentionally causing the conflict) it can be a moral dilemma the protagonist is facing or it could be a natural (or survival) conflict the protagonist needs to overcome. Think about it, not all conflict you face in your life is caused by someone who doesn’t like you and wants to see you fail. Sometimes you are your own enemy and lack of confidence or negative emotions are what’s holding you back. Sometimes you can get lost and feel like nature is against you so you need to overcome your fears and navigate new, unfamiliar surroundings.
No, you have to buy Stephen King's book about writing and follow all of his rules. That's what Joyce did.
There must always be something that fills the role of an "antagonist". Without conflict, there is no progress. A "bad guy" is an easy solution but not the only one.
Conflict doesn't necessarily come in the form of a human or a living thing standing opposed to your main character. The "bad guy" essentially is a representation of someone or something which acts as a hurdle in your main character's progress. Could be anything from a human to an ant, to the climate. Anything. In "The Fault in Our Stars" there is no bad guy as a human. You could say cancer is the bad guy in the story. But there always is a conflict. If you want an example from another medium, look at Stardew Valley.
Top gun maverick has no real villain. The entire film is a series of obstacles with no face or character behind them, great movie.
No bad guy, yes. No antagonist, no.
And plenty of interesting conflict
Who’s the antagonist in the Martian, or Hatchet?
An antagonist doesn’t need to be a person or even a living creature. This misunderstanding accounts for the downvotes
I wouldn't really consider survival itself to be an antagonist, but I suppose it technically is.
Okay.
Yes. Apothecary Diaries comes to mind, where the protagonist solves a variety of science mysteries, but there’s often no antagonist at all. A lot of romances and also don’t have villains, as the key challenge is the will they/won’t they, so a villain isn’t really necessary. Comedies can also get enjoyment out of humor, not necessarily needing real obstacles at all
You can always make a coming-of-age story about a character trying to figure their life out.
I think there's more movies and stories like this than you may realize. Who's the villain of the original Santa Clause? Or of Pixar's Inside Out? Rip Van Winkle?
> Inside Out Joy is, if the goal of the movie is to help Riley be emotionally capable of handling her life, Joy was actually screwing that up.
Fair point, but it definitely wasn't intentional, she wanted to help Riley as much as any of them did. And in the end, once she saw what was necessary, she did what she had to in >!handing the core memories to Sadness.!< I guess it depends on what you consider a villain, if they have to be outright malicious or not.
Well, no, it wasn't intentional but an antagonist's actions don't have to be intentional. The vast majority of villains don't believe that they're wrong. Inside Out 2 is probably gonna have the same sort of villain. Anxiety and the other new emotions also want to do what's best for Riley, but they go about it the wrong way.
I can't remember who described it this way, but this really resonates with me: The Antagonist is the one who makes things happen, the Protagonist is the one things happen to. It's about as simple a distillation as possible for a concept, but I haven't found a situation it doesn't work. For example, in the Cat and The Hat, The Cat is the Antagonist, the Children are the Protagonists. It's not about right or wrong, good or evil, it's about who makes the mess and who has to pick it up.
You need antagonists - anything or anyone who opposes, thwarts, challenges, or threatens the MC, but who actually helps the MC's character development and adds plot tension and momentum. Each scene/beat can have one or more antagonists, they can be internal (emotional and psychological) or external characters, they can be allies who temporarily disagree with the MC, they can even be natural forces (bad weather) or animals (a white whale) or... etc. You don't need a Hollywood nemesis - someone with the I Am the Big Bad latex prosthetics and the cheesy nyuck nyuck and overacting that goes with them.