This is a blog post from Moral Premise Workshop attendee, Ed Godwin.
Is
Rhett Butler her antagonist? In a minor way, yes. He comes and goes in various
forms throughout the story, and is often the foil for her lesser schemes, such
as paying the taxes on Tara. But in many ways he is as deluded as she is. He
marries her, knowing her motivation is pure avarice, yet hopes she will
eventually forget Ashley and love him instead. In that sense she is the clear
antagonist for him, until his frustration drives him to seek comfort
with Belle, the prostitute.
Her
Own Worst Enemy
by Guest Blogger Ed Godwin
by Guest Blogger Ed Godwin
In
the fall of 2012, I had the opportunity to hear Stan Williams give a luncheon
speech at Rochester Writer's Conference in Michigan. I learned more about story
structure in that hour than in all the advice columns and classes before and
since. So when the opportunity arrived in April of this year for an all-day
workshop, I jumped at the chance.
Listing
the various key elements of a good story, he of course included the role of the
antagonist, and how it was important that it be embodied in a person and not
some vague concept. (Read his evaluation of CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE DAWN
TREADER for a good example of this omission.)
Suddenly
I was terrified that I might have to rewrite or abandon the story I'm currently
working on. It didn't seem to have a clear antagonist, at least not at the
beginning. So in an attempt to salvage my pride (a weakness nearly every writer
has at some point), I searched my mind for an example of a successful story
that had no clearly defined antagonist. And I found one--or I thought I did--in
one of the most famous movies of all time: GONE WITH THE WIND.
I
love stories with strong women, and Scarlett O'Hara of course is no exception.
I find delicious irony in that her greatest asset, her will to persevere no
matter what the cost, also blinds her to her ultimate goal of true love. But
therein lies the clue to the dilemma. Who is her antagonist?
First,
we have to realize that she has more than one goal: not only to (1) find true
love, but to (2) save Tara and lift herself out of poverty by “beating [the
Yankees] at their own game.” The Yankees
are a clear antagonist for the second goal, but this is a late subplot,
starting with the defeat of Atlanta and the destruction of her way of life. Her
desire to find love begins in the very first scene, and it isn't resolved until
the very end.
So
if finding true love is her main goal, who is her main antagonist? I first
thought it was Ashley Wilkes. He's the one she's constantly pining after, yet
his honor and fidelity always thwarts her devious schemes. But this goal is not
a goal at all, it's an illusion. In a scene near the beginning, her father
Gerald says "I want my girl to be happy. You'd not be happy with
him." And like all good stories do, that sets up the main conflict right at
the beginning: the pursuit of an impossible dream. I suppose even a false goal
could have a “false antagonist”. But what she really desires is true love. She
just doesn't realize it.
Is
Rhett Butler her antagonist? In a minor way, yes. He comes and goes in various
forms throughout the story, and is often the foil for her lesser schemes, such
as paying the taxes on Tara. But in many ways he is as deluded as she is. He
marries her, knowing her motivation is pure avarice, yet hopes she will
eventually forget Ashley and love him instead. In that sense she is the clear
antagonist for him, until his frustration drives him to seek comfort
with Belle, the prostitute.
But
Scarlett is so determined to win Ashley's love that it blinds her to the real
thing, even when it's staring her in the face. It takes the tragedy of
Melanie's death for her to realize she's been deluding herself all these years.
If this is Scarlett's turn of events toward the truth of the moral premise,
when she finally sees the truth, it is a complete departure from the recommendation
that it should happen somewhere in the middle act. Any previous hint that she
may be waking up to the truth is when Rhett carries her up the stairs for a
night of passion, and she wakes up the next morning beaming with pleasure. But
even that moment is less than thirty minutes from the end of a film nearly four
hours long.
We
love Scarlett. We also despise the scheming side of her (she treats criminals
like slaves and her husbands like dirt), and at least partially applaud when
Rhett walks away with his immortal "I don't give a damn." We love her
and love to hate her at the same time because they both tie into the same moral
premise in different ways, one of hope and perseverance (against poverty), the
other of hope and perseverance taken to an extreme (her treatment of people and
her obsessive infatuation). Scarlett O'Hara is her own worst enemy, both the
hero and the villain, and therefore her own antagonist.
Margaret
Mitchell only published one book during her lifetime. But what an impact that book
made. All because she had the guts (or perhaps the sheer ignorance) to defy the
rules and combine the antagonist and protagonist into one person. What resulted
was one of the richest characters in literary history.
Ed
Godwin
---
So readers what do you think? I've not studied GWTW, but one of these days I'll look at the movie and scan the book. Let's hear from you. GWTW appears to be a tragedy. Is it? Is this a valid moral premise statement for the movie and its main characters, one of which might be the Confederacy?
Clinging to lost hope leads to poverty and lost identity; but
Advocating delusions leads to destitution and anonymity.
Stan Williams
