

  • 5
    What the heck is an "antagonistic theme"? I'm just picturing the theme chasing the protagonist around, shouting Imma getchu! – temporary_user_name Aug 6 '12 at 5:52
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
    @MichaelKjörling: A(n interesting) book cannot be written without a CONFLICT. That's the word you're looking for. Antagonist - person. Conflict - effect - be it caused by antagonist, impartial forces of nature or shortcomings of protagonists. – SF. Oct 22 '13 at 7:56

21 Answers 21




  • 3
  • 8
  • 3
  • 1
    @what A child literally raised in the wild will learn no language and no social rules. And yes, kids do need "antagonizing experiences," because how else do they learn how to overcome them? How do you as a person learn how to be patient if you never had to wait for anything as a kid? I'm not talking about beatings, just providing structure and rules. There's a difference between love/support and spoiling. Do you have kids? – Lauren Ipsum Jan 30 '14 at 15:37
  • 4



  • 6
    An antagonist does not need to be a person... – Stradigos Feb 4 '16 at 22:31









  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2












There are a certain class of works in which the theme is discovery or enlightenment and the antagonistic force is simply ignorance. The effort to overcome ignorance may be a struggle, and enlightenment a victory, without any external attempt by anyone to hinder or obscure discovery.

In others, the antagonist is doubt and the denouement is certainty.

In others, the antagonist is discontent and the denouement is peace.

The appeal of such stories depends very much on the reader's sympathy with or attachment to the ideas which are discovered, in which certainly is gained, or in which peace is found. Stories of conversion to our own views (which, naturally, affirm our attachment to those views) are obviously more appealing than stories of conversion away from our views to their rivals.






An antagonist can be someone whose views differ from the protagonist.

Done correctly, this can be a hugely rewarding concept.



  • 2








Of course there is narrative fiction without conflict. Example:




  • 1
  • 1
    "When I tell how I managed my life without ever being unhappy, then that is a very interesting story to read, because you all could learn a lot from it, despite the fact that it contains not conflict." Unless there is something that reasonably threatens to make you unhappy, a story of how you manage to remain happy -- against absolutely no resistance at all -- would probably be quite boring to read. – Stephen R Mar 20 '17 at 14:14
  • 1
    I would add that conflict doesn't need to be "life or death" to be conflict. GHMILY is a game -- a competition by your own description -- between the two characters. A playful, loving one, but a competition nonetheless. Competition, by definition, is conflict. Imagine rewriting it without the conflict: "I love you." "I love you too." The End. ;-) – Stephen R Mar 20 '17 at 14:18
  • A story is not "when things happen". If "things happen" it is a list of events, not a story. A story is when SOMETHING is overcome and some sort of change of state occurs. Without some sort of conflict, story is impossible. – JBiggs Jul 26 '17 at 18:01

An interesting example of a movie without a "bad guy" is My Cousin Vinny. There is definitely conflict, but with the exception of a murderer who never appears on screen or is even named, every person in the movie is essentially a good person doing they best they can. The judge, the sheriff, the prosecutor, the lawyers, the (innocent) accused -- none of them is a villain

  • 1
    yes but "villain" ≠ "antagonist." Just because everyone means well doesn't mean that some of them are not opposed to the protagonists (Vinny, Lisa, and Ralph Macchio). Anyone or anything which keeps the protagonist(s) from their goals is the antagonist. See my comments above on Standback's answer. – Lauren Ipsum Mar 20 '17 at 17:25

I know this is years late, but I disagree that books must have conflict and an antagonist to be interesting.

One type of book that seems relevant to this question is one that paints a picture of a time and place; the people living in a location and their relationships with each other. These relationships don't have to result in major conflict to be interesting, and I think the mood created by these books is special. I'd also argue that it two minor characters don't get along, that doesn't make one of them the antagonist of the whole book. I'm thinking of books like The Country of Pointed Firs by Sarah Orne Jewett and The Summer Book by Tove Jansson. In The Country of Pointed Firs, the protagonist is an author who takes up lodging in a country town with the goal of getting some work done. No one interferes with this goal, and the book itself is a series of vignettes about the people of the town and how they live. Similarly, The Summer Book is a series of stories about the summer vacation of a small girl and her grandmother. I might classify Trout Fishing in America by Richard Brautigan in this group as well. It certainly evokes the attitude of a time and a place, but I'm not sure I could tell you who or what the antagonist of this book is.

Another type of book that might fit the idea of exploring what Judeo-Christian Heaven would look like is the travelogue. Describing the physical journey of the protagonist can be interesting and even full of adventure without being antagonistic. Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome has plenty of comic mishaps, but I don't think I'd be able to point to an antagonist. Even something like The Towers of Trebizond by Rose Macauley might fit this. There are some conflicts during the travels, but most of the character growth is the narrator introspecting on events in their recent past. One might count this as self-antagonistic, but I also think you could argue this isn't so much conflict as just taking the time necessary to sort through some mental baggage. I guess having the character reflect on past antagonism and grow from that is a bit of a cheat, but one that might work for a book set in heaven. (Admittedly it has been a while since I read the Towers of Trebizond, so I might be misremembering it a bit.)

Finally, I think it is possible for a book to create a relationship between two characters that isn't necessarily one of conflict, but which can be interesting and lead to character growth. Tove Jansson has another book that fits this category: Fair Play. This is about two women who have been friends for years, and how they both live, relate to one another, and get on with their creative endeavors. Their relationship isn't all flowers and sunshine, and they do have disagreements, but they don't interfere with each other's main goals, so I don't know that I'd feel comfortable calling them antagonists.


You cannot have a novel without an antagonist. An antagonist comes in two forms:

A physical antagonist: a person with a grudge against your protagonist, who will do whatever it takes to overcome the protagonist e.g. Voldemort, the Joker, Loki.

There is also the abstract antagonist: An event or similar, something like a weakness that the protagonist must overcome to achieve his goals e.g. fear, poverty, a corrupt government.

Either way, an antagonist is an obstacle, designed to prevent the protagonist from achieving his goal. This is where the antagonist is critical: if there is nothing stopping the protagonist, if it is all smooth sailing, then the novel is not exciting, a must for any bestseller, and usually a must if you want to be published.

For your plot, why not bring hell into it? You could send some demons in to wreak havoc on the heavenly community.


Absolutely, unequivocally no. There is absolutely no way to write a story without some kind of antagonist. By definition, a story is a logical series of related events which resolve something and seem to have a meaning greater than the sum of their parts when strung together. You can't resolve something without an antagonist, because there is no problem without one.

What are the three classic types of plot in literature? Man Versus Man -Obviously, Man is the antagonist (probably a bad man, but this can take lots of different forms). Man Versus Nature -Nature is the antagonist. Nature can be cruel, it can be deadly, and it is unmerciful. Nature actually makes a pretty good antagonist. Man Versus Himself -Man is still the antagonist! Now, he's just getting in his own way, which is very much in character for him.

Notice a pattern? It's the "versus". There must be a "versus" in order to have a plot. You can get very experimental and actually write a story with no protagonist (I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be done). What you cannot do is go without some kind of antagonist at all. This need not be a "bad guy", but a "bad guy" is actually more important to telling a story than a "good guy" is!

Your problem here is a philosophical/theological one, not a problem of storytelling. You want to write a story set in a place with no conflict of any kind? How about a realistic novel about the residents of a graveyard? The only way that people can have no conflicts at all between them is if their are either dead or no longer human. I might submit that the Christian view of heaven as being entirely without conflict is not necessarily supported by the text of Scripture, but that is a totally different argument. Conflict isn't bad per se, in fact it is part of our nature. Even God engages in conflict in the Bible... There are many types of interesting conflict beyond an apocalyptic clash between ultimate good and ultimate evil for the ownership of the world. In fact, that is a pretty boring scenario. People would much rather read about the difficulties of learning to live with your newly dead relatives who you keep having misunderstandings with when they move into heaven down the street from your own little personal piece of paradise.

I'd suggest that if you can't conceive of a "heaven" where some kind of conflict is possible, do not write about it unless you want to create something indescribably boring.


There are three basic conflict themes: Man against nature, man against man, and man against himself. If the story theme is "man against nature," you have no (human) antagonist. Unless you consider "nature" the antagonist.


Can a book be written without an antagonist?

Yes, it can.

I'm answering late and have read the other answers. I had to look it up, but in every dictionary reading I have found, "Antagonist" is a person or "One who opposes ...", and in this context I think "one" is obviously singular, and refers to a person with intent to oppose (or in scifi or fantasy, a sentient being capable of such intent).

I don't think "antagonist" and "conflict" are synonymous, if anything it is closer to "antagonist" and "villain" being synonymous.

A book can be written without any specific villain or villains. A story like the Tom Hanks movie Cast Away, marooned alone, needs no specific villain with intent. The pain is thirst, hunger, heat, isolation, medical emergency, the triumph is finding solutions to those problems. No villain with intent is required.

Another plot could b a woman coming to terms with her imminent death due to cancer. No villain with intent is required.

Or, a teen girl struggling with the realization she is gay. This needs no villain with intent, it can be her struggle with her own beliefs and expectations, her anticipations about how her parents, siblings and society in general will treat her. She simultaneously wants to be a conformist and fit in, and desires a non-conformist love life and sex life.

A book cannot be written without conflict of some sort; a disparity between what exists and what is desired, puzzles to be solved, physical or emotional pain, hardships. Irrevocable events, like a death, that demand adaption to a new reality.


The answer to any "can I write" question is always "yes." But antagonists do a lot of heavy lifting in a book, they provide a lot of intrinsic interest, and useful narrative conflict. Readers tend to like works with compelling antagonists, and find them interesting to read.

So, if you do want to write a book without an antagonist, you'll need to work that much harder to find a way to draw in the reader without one. It may be possible, but you'll be given the reader a much different experience than a typical novel.

Your Answer

