What are the dangers of making my protagonist and antagonist too similar?

What are the dangers of making my protagonist and antagonist too similar?

Brecht already did it.

You end up writing a YA novel.

They won't be memorable.

Why?

If you make them similar in casual traits, but 'opposites' at the same time - sort of like the Jungian 'Shadow' - it could be pretty good. Like have them both have the same quirks, taste in food, women, art, et cetera. But have the complete opposite in terms of world view, and emotions.

The dangers in having them be similar would be that if not done properly it just blends together. It looks more like lazy writing, or maybe even self-inserting, if you make everyone too similar. You also have to worry about them empathizing with the antagonist more than the protagonist; it's actually pretty common to empathize with the antagonist more than the protagonist. When I was reading Faust it bothered me that there was no redemption for Mephistopheles, even though it would make absolutely no sense.

In short, there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it. But it should be for a good reason, otherwise you're going to have a lot of pitfalls. If you just do it willy nilly, and make them similar you might not be putting in enough effort to have the two be important enough to make a good story.

Similar in what way?

You have no conflict no clash of different worldviews Im not saying it can't work but it could end up pretty boring

He said it all.

>Like have them both have the same quirks, taste in food, women, art, et cetera. But have the complete opposite in terms of world view, and emotions.

This isnt really something the book cares about. They are similar in that they are filled with rage and hatred against women. They are both part of the same murderous race (lets just call them hellspawn).

What separates them is that the antagonist eventually realizes he isnt truly "evil" even if killing in a dreamlike haze quells his pent up need for revenge, and towards the end, only kills because his "friend" (an illusion) is watching him. He idolizes and romanticizes the concept of true love and friendship between men, women and lust leading them astray, as he lives in the "shadow of betrayal".

The protagonist, impotent in his last life, hates himself and through it, what makes him hate himself. A far more passive and vitriol filled hatred instead of a white hot rage guides his path. He instead fantasizes and idolizes the concept of true love between man and woman, and it culminates in protecting his "angel" that resembles the wife he killed, mirroring the antagonist in that the protagonist never kills under his angels eyes.

deleted the original post and reposted to fix a few typos

jesus christ

I have a visceral reaction to shitpost about your plot, but I'll have to suppress that. Having both characters have the same origin, or maybe even being friends at the beginning is okay. Personal history being similar is a lot more generous than personality being similar. Just try and make sure that their 'split' into different people is believable, and don't try to make one character pure evil and the other pure good. They should both have good reasons for doing what they do, and thinking what they think. Make sure that your protagonist has an organic development in character, instead of just having one major moment every couple of chapters that changes him immediately. It will be much more effective to have him, say, confront a scenario he's already encountered, but react differently to it. Seeing that small development in his personality should mitigate any downsides to having the antagonist be similar.

I'm sorry, i can't help you further.
This is too "fantasy-ish" for me.
It feels like this:

That isnt the plot though, at all. Its just an overly simplified explanation of the differences and similarities between the protagonist and antagonist without any spoilers

>don't try to make one character pure evil and the other pure good.

the book deals with the concept of learned evil, particularly taking inspiration from religions like islam. They are both "evil", with their path being about the discovery of what exactly is the difference between giving in to your emotions and just committing evil out of principle.

>Make sure that your protagonist has an organic development in character, instead of just having one major moment every couple of chapters that changes him immediately.

The first half of the story is like a nightmare. The second half is the protagonist "waking up" and trying to find a purpose in ill conceived revenge

I feel like this advice is really far below the level that youd give me if I hadnt given a somewhat amateurish image of the work by winging such obvious explanations of general concepts and things. You shouldnt think that im trying to accurately represent my work here, Im simply talking about the general ideas and what ideas people here have on those ideas.

And btw, if something sounds clunky or stupid, its also because english isnt my first language. If im writing at the pace of making Veeky Forums posts, itll be far more ridiculous than something Id make by either sitting down to create it for a longer time/ just writing it in my mother tongue in the first place

Well good luck to you then!

Not OP, but you are a very nice and patient man and I appreciate you.

...

>The dangers in having them be similar would be that if not done properly it just blends together.
I disagree, antagonists are necessarily parallel in nature. A true foil or antagonist serves to highlight its differences with the protagonist. If the two characters are entirely different, then the contrasts between them will be less apparent. Frequently opposing characters are similar in many regards: profession, age, gender, goals, tactics. We need the similarities to highlight the differences, and the differences too can be in my previous list. It all depends on the story you want to tell.
I suppose OP should clarify what they mean by "too similar". Surely its possible for them to be too similar. Were they the same character, they would cease being antagonistic at all. I would argue that a malevolent character entirely different than the protagonist is a villain, and would be less humanized in general.

Good point. I think OP's work goes along with what you're saying. The characters a sharp contrasts, but similar enough to really tell the difference. It's definitely a good technique, as you can use the main character as a weight to weigh the antagonist against. I wonder if this is why alien and zombie movies aren't that good; since there isn't a real 'antagonist' who you can judge against the protagonist; just creatures doing bad things because it's in their nature.

Although I think there are some good exceptions to the concept of the protagonist and antagonist being similar. A beggar and a general from a rich family have little in common, but that contrast makes them good enemies. The only way some protagonists and antagonists are similar is by being opposite ends of the same spectrum. Like a criminal and a detective, a captain and a passenger. Othello is an excellent example of having the protagonist and antagonist be similar, but still fundamentally different.

I misspoke. That is something I should have explained further, otherwise I shouldn't have said it at all. Stories are too dynamic to make such a broad statement.

When

seven deadly sins

The possibility that in a future film adaptation of your work, the antagonist could say during the third act, "we're not so different, you and I." :^DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

It will feel like a sequel.

wut? also I don't really see it. Its like asking "what if both where racist but just in different ways" where is the pitfall?

have you played bloodborn?

>antagonists are necessarily parallel in nature.
wrong. They can be but often in can give a feeling of artificiality to the story. It works when there is only 1 antagonist but less so when the protagonist has to live his life and deal with a lot of antagonists. Its like true love, the mix is never the same after you lose your 3rd wife

Because it will more than likely just be a derivative trope done 10000000000X before

But who am I kidding, you probably reinvented literature with your first attempt at a novel right?

>trope
tropes are building blocks of stories. its always about presentation, not about what is actually happening

I totally agree with you. Like I said, you definitely broke the mold. Scholars will be writing about you hundreds of years into the future. What do you care what some user thinks on a chinese calligraphy forum?

You're implying literature has to be innovative

>They are similar in that they are filled with rage and hatred against women.
another story about betas writing for betas by a beta. women will not read your story.

brainlet detected

Yes, its my favorite game. However, I actually started work on this before it even released and have changed alot of terminology and concepts (like nightmares) especially because bloodborne happened to have a lot of surface level similarities

If I write an anti-hero, does that make their counterpart a tagonist?

another brainlet spotted, do you actually think that someone needs to "reinvent literature" or "break the mold" to write something good?

You also seem to be under the assumption that "tropes" and whatnot matter at all in constructing a book. Are you the type of harry potter reading clown who exclusively reads for the plot?

UNFFFFFF

Still to this day I want to lick those feet