What Protagonist and Antagonist Really Means (and How That Changes How You View Stories)

I've noticed recently that maybe people don't fully understand what "protagonist" and "antagonist" actually mean, when you look up their original meanings. To be honest, I was shocked when I heard people using the terms wrong. And it isn't just non-writers doing this - writers do it too!

Photo by Timon Studler on Unsplash

If it was just people who don't write using one or both of these words wrong, I would not be writing this post at all. I don't expect these people to know how to use them correctly, especially when they aren't commonly used in most of their discussions. But most writers don't seem to know this either, and it's bothering me. Why? Because I feel like they are limiting themselves with their misconceptions about protagonist and antagonist. 

While this is a minor issue compared to other writer misconceptions, it still drastically changed how I think and study stories. I think it's important as a writer to completely understand the role of protagonist and antagonist. Not just for yourself, but for your audience too.

So what are the misconceptions?

The popular definition of protagonist is that they are a leading good character. Their main goal as a character in the story is to have a positive arc, be a role model to the audience, and always aim to promote the morals that everyone can agree is right and just. At the same time, they need to be proactive, making their own choices rather than letting the plot do it for them.

Short version: protagonist = good guy

And the common definition for antagonist is that they are either a villain or just a bad character, since not all antagonists are strictly villains to most, if not all, people's understanding of the word. The key point is that they are evil and immoral in some way, from bully to murderer to destroying/ruling over the whole world.

Short version: antagonist = bad guy

These definitions sound very familiar to you, doesn't it? And I bet you probably used them both consciously and unconsciously (I know I have for years). If I told you that they are wrong, would you be confused or shocked? If you are, well, I was in the same situation months ago. Even though I have been following a great website for writers for a year now that clearly use protagonist and antagonist differently from what I learnt (somehow) as a beginner writer, it still didn't click in my brain until I had a discussion with my sister about Othello.

I haven't read the play myself, but my sister was making the point that Othello wasn't the protagonist of the story (I know right, I was confused about that too) and that the protagonist was actually Othello's servant dude who was plotting against him. Why? Because it is through his eyes that the story is being told. He is the main POV. Not Othello. I don't even think Othello has a POV in the story at all (may be wrong, cause again I haven't read it for myself). We even looked up the meaning for the protagonist to check if her theory was correct, and that lead to us looking up the meaning for antagonist too.

We came to the conclusion, since the meaning said nothing against Othello's servant being one, that he was the protagonist. That also meant Othello was the antagonist, because to the servant Othello was the enemy. 

This is when things finally shifted for me.

So what are the true meanings?

Let's break down the words to their Greek meaning, their origin. 

Protagonist > prōtagōnistēs > prōtos > agōnistēs

prōtos means "first"

agōnistēs means "actor"

So protagonist means "first actor"

Back in those days, stories were told through acting them out, what we do now in theatres with plays. Most stories start with the protagonist (we are ignoring the existence of prologues), the character who will appear the most in the story. So the main character being the "first actor" makes complete sense.

Antagonist > antagōnistēs > antagōnizesthai

antagōnizesthai means "struggle against"

Basically, it's saying that the antagonist is a character who is opposing or fighting against someone.

When you look at the bones of the words, you can see that they have nothing to do with good or evil. Which means that the protagonist doesn't have to be a good character. The antagonist doesn't have to be evil. They can have any moral they want. They can be in the grey area, rather than black or white (as the rise of anti-heroes has showed). The main point of a protagonist is to lead the story, and the main point of an antagonist is to be a living obstacle to them. No one has to have certain morals to fulfill these roles.

But I think nowadays, with millions and millions of stories out there, the basic story formula being repeated over and over again, people have place the protagonist and the antagonist into boxes. Keep in mind, this isn't a bad thing at all. Good protagonist vs. evil antagonist is a classic for a reason. But it makes me think that sometimes people aren't willing to write stories differently, because how well a good protagonist and evil antagonist works. Plus it's easier to write the protagonist as good than as evil because more people are likely to care for the protagonist and thus the story if they are good. Most people want good people winning and bad people losing, probably because reality isn't that simple and tons of other reasons.

I wonder though if more antagonists could be good. If more protagonists didn't seem like they were evil but were. If more antagonists had more good morals than anti-heroes. If anti-heroes turned more evil in the end instead of more good. If more protagonists could be a role model without being ultimately good. If both more antagonists and protagonists could be more morally grey with their goodness or evilness.

As a writer, I just find these ifs fascinating. You might think as someone who claims to be a Christian that having clear good and evil characters is important for reflecting my faith. But as I am discovering, the more I read the bible, the more I interact with real people, that no human is perfectly good or evil. Everyone makes mistakes, some small, some big. There's a lot of hurt, pain and grief found in the "good" and "bad" people. I am finding that depicting humans as grey rather than straight white or black is so much more honest, real and beautiful.

I personally want to meet more humans, not more characters.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed reading this. It isn't something I would normally write. I just needed to share these thoughts, as I said, it was bothering me how some people were defining protagonists as someone who needs to be a somewhat good character, and antagonists as someone who needs to be evil.

What do you think? Was this unnecessary writing randomness? Was it helpful in some way? Let me know down in the comments!

P.S. Yes, I changed my blog's appearance again. I felt it needed a change since I've changed so much as a person this year, and the things the blog represented about me are not longer true to me. This feels more like me, who God is leading me to be. It's exciting, it's terrifying. There might be more changes, or none at all. The main thing is that I am not going to stop blogging any time soon (in care you're wondering). It may be more inconsistent (and random), but otherwise I'm here to stay.