I found “Lincoln” instructive on the subject of the psychological journey primarily because the story doesn’t seem to fit the standard paradigm of character development. The standard paradigm is a Protagonist possesses a flaw that jeopardizes the outcome of his struggle. The Protagonist is in a potentially fatal state of Disunity. But this story opens in January, 1865 with a Protagonist whose character has been forged in the crucible of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln has already grown to become one of greatest, one of the best Presidents the country will ever have. Lincoln would seem to have no character flaw worth worrying about. Lincoln is a portrayed as a steadfast character, a man who doesn’t change because he doesn’t need to change. In the battle to free the slaves, he’s on the side of God and history. In contrast, his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, is a deeply flawed character, the source of grievous Disunity in Lincoln’s personal life. Principal among her problems is that she still grieves the death of her son, Willie, three years earlier from typhus. She vehemently opposes her oldest son, Robert, enlisting, fearing she will lose him also. As I noted in discussing the major plot points, Kushner resolves this Disunity by weaving the story thread of Mary’s psychological journey into the struggle for the 13th Amendment. Initially, she has no personal stakes in the political fight. But when she can see her way to becoming a major stakeholder in the 13th Amendment, she gives her consent for Robert to enlist. The two issues are joined: “Since you are sending my son into the war, woe unto you if you fail to pass the amendment.” Now then. In the standard paradigm, the Protagonist is opposed by the singular character of the Antagonist. Who is that in this story? Well, take your pick: from the Confederacy, from Congress, from the press, the public at large. Lincoln is attacked on all sides by opponents and critics. But it seems to me that none of them is sufficiently salient to be the Antagonist in Chief to the Commander in Chief. Nor, I submit, does Lincoln have a worthy Nemesis. What’s the difference between an Antagonist and a Nemesis? I confess I was initially skeptical about Scott’s preference for the term Nemesis rather than Protagonist. But I have come to consider Nemesis to be a more effective term to use in characterizing the primary adversary. The Nemesis seems to be a species of Antagonist who at the start of the story possesses more power, more resources than the Protagonist. The Nemesis is an Antagonist who forces the Protagonist to undergo a psychological journey of growth and transformation in order to overcome the Nemesis -- and any other obstacles -- and achieve the dramatic purpose. But Lincoln asserts “I am the President of the United States of America, clothed in immense power.” That’s a fact, not a boast. So scratch out Lincoln having a Nemesis in terms of any one man who has more power. Another trait of the Nemesis is an unerring ability to attack the Protagonist's Achilles heel, his character flaw. That’s why the Protagonist must transform to ultimately prevail. But, as I said, I can find no character flaw in Lincoln that places the 13th Amendment in jeopardy. But there is a flawed character who can make or break the 13th Amendment. And a Nemesis lurking in the story waiting to exploit his flaws. The pivotal and flawed character is Thaddeus Stevens, leader of the radical Republicans. His Nemesis is the minority leader,George Pendleton. Stevens’ flaws are the hubris of uncompromising, moral zeal and a lack of discipline to temper his tongue. Pendelton knows his flaws and exactly how to exploit them. He orders a colleague to “... taunt him... get him to proclaim what we all know he believes in his coal-colored heart.” If Pendleton can exploit Stevens’ flaws, the 13th Amendment is doomed. But Stevens, though no fan-boy of Lincoln, heeds the President’s counsel, curbs his tongue, says what he has to say instead of what he wants to say. He compromises his own sense of integrity for the greater cause of the 13th Amendment. For me, this script is a good example of not only the dramatic importance of having a genuine Nemesis, but how to inject one into a story when the Protagonist doesn’t appear to have a qualifying character flaw to exploit. Give a potentially fatal flaw to a pivotal character, someone who can make or break the Protagonist’s story goal. Okay, I’ve said that Lincoln has no character flaw worth worrying about, no Nemesis, no worthy Antagonist. And yet Lincoln does change. He's forced to change. How? Does it qualify as a psychological journey? Or...?

As always, Paul, excellent analysis. Your comments and the movie bring to mind several thoughts: * First off, I agree that Lincoln (the character) does not represent the typical Protagonist as you described, one who goes through a transformation, most usually a positive arc from -- my language -- Disunity to Unity. Instead what we have here is, I think, an example of Protagonist as Change Agent. Lincoln is, as you note, a steadfast character throughout, that pretty much is the substance of his psychological journey, to withstand any and all pressures, logic, and temptations to give up on his crusade to get the 13th Amendment passed. Instead it is through his force of will and appeal to common human decency, along with using political arm-twisting to get that Amendment enacted in to law. In this respect, he takes a nation and its people - symbolically and legally - a giant step forward from Disunity toward Unity. As I say, Change Agent. * We transformations with a host of other characters, primary and secondary. You have done a great job analyzing what transpires with Mary Todd Lincoln, how she shifts from rather tepid support for the 13th Amendment to strong support based on specific personal reasons, but each senator who changes their position to vote for the 13th Amendment represents an individual metamorphosis. This speaks to the importance of subplots. My principle: Subplot = Relationship. And either directly or through proxy, Lincoln has a relationship with each of those key senators and their swing votes. Each of those relationships/subplots has its own Beginning, Middle, and End, each leading to a Yea vote. Each subplot is compelling in and of itself, but when cross-cut one to the other, then aggregated on the floor of the Senate, the parts combine to become a powerful Final Struggle sequence. * Re Nemesis: It's important for us to remember that archetypes are at their core personifications of narrative dynamics: Protagonist - Forward moving energy toward a conscious goal. Nemesis - Oppositional energy working to repel the Protagonist. Attractor - A relationship to the Protagonist most fundamentally about the P's emotional life. Mentor - A relationship to the Protagonist most fundamentally about the P's intellectual life. Trickster - Testing the Protagonist's will. [BTW, we see each of these dynamics playing out in Lincoln with specific characters providing these functions.] We must also remember that any of these narrative dynamics can be enshrouded in a single character or multiple characters. I think this is the case with Lincoln as there are many characters who don the nemesis 'mask' from time to time to provide that oppositional dynamic, standing against the President and his goal: Getting the 13th Amendment passed by Congress. Even Mentor figures like Seward and an Attractor like Mary Todd, along with Trickster Stevens have key moments where they provide opposition to Lincoln. So I think you are right, Paul, there is no single Nemesis figure in relation to Lincoln, but a tag team of characters who on key occasions don the nemesis mask to provide opposition. * That said, I think you make a great point re the Stevens-Pendleton subplot (relationship). When you boil it all down, Lincoln's goal hinges on Stevens and what he says and DOESN'T say relative to the 13th Amendment and race relations in general. So in lead-up to and playing out of the Final Struggle, Stevens acts as a titular protagonist. Lincoln can only stand alone in the White House... and wait. Thus Pendleton's plot to "taunt" Stevens into his usual state of pontification is the plan of a character donning a nemesis mask. Indeed, if one were to look at the story through Stevens' eyes as the Protagonist -- in fact, all characters ARE the Protagonist in their own story -- Pendleton is Stevens' Nemesis. Thus in the Final Struggle, by extension, Pendleton is also Lincoln's nemesis while Stevens, who is a classic Trickster figure, in that very moment when he stands to address the Senate, he shrouds his Trickster face and dons a protagonist mask, in effect acting on Lincoln's behalf. Lincoln is a great example of a story that is both traditional in nature with its Three Act Structure, character archetypes, central conflict, Final Struggle and positive resolution, but as you have noted, Paul, in your excellent analyses this week, the script does several non-traditional things as well including Protagonist as Change Agent, no single, clearly defined Nemesis figure, and so forth. But if as Joseph Campbell asserts the whole point of a Hero's Journey is transformation, then Lincoln lies smack in the middle of that narrative form because there is change going on in the story with multiple characters, from micro to macro, virtually every scene about shifting someone's perspective on matters at hand.