Thoughts on Stories with No Protagonists

[MakBow]

I have read/watched a few stories like Juni Taisen (No, not Jujutsu Kaisen) zodiac war, and it made me wonder to have no protagonist and instead of multiple sides in the story. I think it's really interesting to try and pursue. I tried it once, but the transitions were kinda a$$ with only changing when a different character on a different side was nearby.

What about you?

What do you think of no protagonists, only main characters & antagonists(+ villains)?

 

[MFontana]

I have read/watched a few stories like Juni Taisen (No, not Jujutsu Kaisen) zodiac war, and it made me wonder to have no protagonist and instead of multiple sides in the story. I think it's really interesting to try and pursue. I tried it once, but the transitions were kinda a$$ with only changing when a different character on a different side was nearby.

What about you?

What do you think of no protagonists, only main characters & antagonists(+ villains)?

From a narrative sense, the Protagonist and Antagonist are two sides of the same coin, and both are fundamentally necessary to narrative storytelling, because it is through them that you, the author, are able to convey a narrative's conflict.
You can't actually have one, without the other, and they are a fundamental aspect of narrative storytelling.
The protagonist, is simply a primary character that undergoes a growth arc over the course of the narrative, while being the character followed by the narrative.
Now, if you mean "heroes" and "villains" instead, you can certainly write stories without any heroes or villains. The characters within the narrative may exist on different sides of a conflict (hence protagonist and antagonist) but are under no obligations to be heroic or villainous.
The protagonist is generally the perspective character the narrative (and reader) follow. They don't actually have to be heroic though. They can be anything you, the author, want them to be, while the antagonist is simply any character who opposes the protagonist.

So, let's say you have a narrative, and you are presenting it from the perspective of one character per chapter.
The perspective character is the protagonist of that chapter or segment. The characters who are opposed to them, are the antagonists of that chapter or segment.
But later, you switch to tell a later segment through one of the prior segment's antagonists. That character is now the protagonist of the new section, undergoing whatever story arc you have planned for them, while the characters who are opposing them (including your former protagonist) are now antagonists.

Hope this helps.

 

[CountVanBadger]

A book without a protagonist would have to be written like a history textbook, just giving a completely disconnected summary of everything that happens from a "bird's eye" view, you could say. The minute you start telling the story from one character's POV, they automatically become the protagonist.

Even then, no single character would be allowed to have any significant amount of attention put on them, because then they would become the protagonist even if the story isn't following them, specifically.

 

[LiteraryWho]

Strictly speaking, a protagonist is simply the character who drives the action of the story. That is to say, they're the ones who make the story be a thing. The antagonist is the one who opposes the goals of the protagonist.

The protagonist of the story doesn't have to be a good guy, they don't have to be the POV, and in fact they don't even really have to appear in the story at all. They do have to exist, however, otherwise, nothing happens, and you don't actually have a story.

That said, a story can have a diffuse set of protagonists, none of which is truly *the* protagonist, though you'd end up with a muddled and weak story overall, or at least there's a risk of it. The protagonist can also be a more abstract group, like a nation, though such stories would usually feature leaders in the nation as protagonist.

 

[BearlyAlive]

I think the question only makes sense if you switch it around. The moment you follow a character's perspective they become a protagonist/deuteragonist/antagonist of your story. Same with history book-style retellings, but the moment you focus too much on a single person they become a character in your story.

A story without main characters would be weird, but possible, i.e. focusing on what is happening instead of the characters, for example. But in those stories it could also be argued that every character is a main character...

 

[TinaMigarlo]

I had read "the Eiger Sanction", it was by a author by the name of "Tremayne" (spelling?) Anyways, I liked it so later on when I saw another paperback by him, naturally I bought it. Actually it was one of those "two books in one" deals. SO I read the story I wanted to read, then... "the Main" was the last one left.

A Canadian city cop, had rounds. His beat was... "the Main" which was what the locals called the main drag in that area. So he would walk around, and observe things. Make I will admit deep or insightful observations on people, places things. Society and values, music and art, everything and anything. It was well written, it was interesting, but... nothing was, you know, happening. I was scratching my head getting near the end of the book, but... maybe when its wrapping up, he had solved some case or affected this big thing without knowing he had done it?

Uh, no. The book just ended as it started. Him walking his beat. I was left puzzled. I had a few zingers and things I remembered to say to this day, but... plot? None. I always say and wondered what that author was UP TO with that. Best I came up with, was one of two situations :

1) he wanted out of a so-many-books contract, and this fulfilled his legal obligation so he could move on.
2) was it an experimental novel, could he write something that technically had no plot whatsoever.

so that experience is the only way I can "relate" to people talking about slice of life as a genre. Nothing's gonna happen, don't look or wait for it.

You can have a protagonist though, that's not a HUMAN, nor any other character. A situation can be the antagonist. In some disaster paperbacks, the mudslide and the earthquake that triggered it, is the antagonist, the bad guy is just the disaster. The antagonist, the villain, could be... anything. In what you described? War isn't something countries just do FOR FUN. There's typically some reason or purpose for the war. The villain/antagonist? Could just be the whole war situation in and of itself.

note that even though you don't "have" a villain or antagonist... you still do. With no conflict, you're just telling a story to say things. You can be imaginative as all holy hell with what that conflict is though. But unless you just want to use a purposeless setting and story as a vehicle to say other things you think are cool... you need something in the way of a conflict. I mean, even if you don't realize it, a person figuring out *whatever* is a conflict in and of itself. And you can still use the story as the vehicle for all the cool things you wanted to say just as well.

just don't lose sight of the fact that just because the conflict is not between two or more characters, classic hero/villain, classic protagonist/antagonist... some situation can be the conflict. Remember, to some people? The hero really isn't the whole point of the story. The villain is. With no villain, you have no hero. With no antagonist, you have no reason for this protagonist to BE the protagonist. Just surviving the war, or the country remaining after its over, can be the "conflict".

actually, pulling something like this off, would I feel be the higher quality story. I try to keep my premise/conflict basic, so I can (hopefully, anyways) not get lost.