I lack antagonism!

[elfs]

I've been running through the Sterlings series again, doing three separate things: create more tension within the Sterlings contingent by pointing out that there are deep philosophical and political differences among the three worlds within the Sterling government, use those philosophical differences to create more tension between my characters and their environment, and to clean out a ton of cruft. I estimate that Ken Rand was right, and that at least ten percent of my story is overwritten cruft that my fingers automagically churned out to make my daily quota for NaNoWriMo.

One thing I realized as I was reviewing it is that the Dove's story lacks an antagonist. There are antagonizing influences around her, the ones that first jar her out of her stifled, content little world, and then the ones that try hard to stuff her back, but they're not the antagonists; instead, it's her own misgivings about leaving behind her stifled, content little world that antagonize her.

Reading about characters waffling between conventional and radical existences has been done to death, and would probably boring if it weren't for the odd context and great sex. But that's just my take on things. I'm still not sure where she's headed, but she's pretty stuck right now.

Much erotica is based on this premise, of freeing oneself from stultifying conventions that may or may not be protective or, more to the point, may not be protective any longer as cultural or technological change makes the protection irrelevant. It makes me wonder if erotica needs a willful antagonist, or if the character's own agony is sufficient.

---

Hot, cute, sadly deluded men. (Scroll down, probably SFW.)

Comments

[fallenpegasus]

"may not be protective any longer as cultural or technological change makes the protection irrelevant"

That prompts me to remember something I've been mulling over for some years, that I will now try to explain, very poorly.

I think there are a lot of things that have cultural barriers and wrappings because they are powerful and/or dangerous. But changes in technology and culture make it look like the barriers and wrappings can now be done away with, because cultural or technological change makes the protection irrelevant. Except that it's not actually true. Some of the *old* "first order" "bad consequences" may have been now rendered moot, but there are still plenty of second and third order "bad consequences", and bad consequenses that happen *slower*. Or *later*. And/or fall more heavily on *other people*.

I have no conclusion here. Yet.