I have been writing on the site for a while and some of you have read my story and the feedback has been great. I was watching a movie the other day when it struck me with a question that I ten applied to the books and stories I've read here and everywhere else. Every story has a protagonist, to most this is the hero character. While this isn't always the case the protagonist always the central character to a story. What happened in I was watching Live Free or Die Hard that day and earlier I had watched one of Steven Segal's movies. Yes, I am a guy and do enjoy action flick, but I also enjoy everything else that can garner my attention such a RomComs and Slapstick as well as serious Drama. Three of my favorite movies are Kingdom of Heaven, Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. What passed through my mind was the question related to how the main character is portrayed in those movies and in many other forms of fiction.

Steven Segal always portrays these individuals with unique or unlikely backgrounds to play the larger than life unstoppable Hero. Sometimes that hero has a dark history but he's always heroic. While there care can be interesting they are simply two-dimensional having no depth. While the movies are entertaining you have no empathy for the character because you can't relate in many ways. Yeah the motivation of haveing a friend or family member killed or placed in danger we can all understand but it still leaves me with a disconnect from the story.

Now look at Bruce Willis's Portrayal of Jon McClaine and other characters that he has portrayed and those of many other popular movies and books. John McClaine is portrayed as very human. His life is far from perfect, in many cases far from even what most would consider good or even happy. He does what needs to be done despite cost to him professionally, physically and emotionally. He doesn't do it to be the Big Bad Ass Hero, he does it because he's the one there and it needs to be done. He isn't portrayed as super human, he is shown racking up the injuries and fighting for because of strength of will and pure determination. He has troubles in his marriage, family and professional lives that spill over to effect each other instead of being nice and compartmentalized like in other hero portrayals. All of this gives his character depth and makes him easier to relate to.

Add in that most of the Big Bad Hero's can do everything themselves and rarely need any assistance from anyone, compared to how the more human ones are always relying on people they meet along the way and teamwork it again makes those more human characters easier to understand and in my opinion more entertaining and likable. Some of the more human ones come across as assholes sometimes, but that just makes them more like everyone else and adds depth to the characters.

Another example of and interesting Protagonist comes from a Mel Gibson movie called Payback. Not one person in the movie is what anyone would call a hero. Everyone was a criminal of some sort, most of them violent. Gibson's character was a cold blooded thief and was willing to kill to get what was his. Choosing who to root for in the story was an example of the idea of: What do you choose when all the choices are bad? I greatly enjoined the idea behind the story as much as I enjoyed the action as well.

What I'd like to hear back is your opinions and ideas regarding Protagonist such as these and other types that I haven't mentioned. What type do you prefer? Give examples from books or movies and even from the stories here on this site and others. Why do you prefer these types and like the characters you chose specifically? What do you think of my opinions and conclusions?

The reason I ask this is to aid in both improving my own writing and understanding other writers and readers perspectives. I'll start with my conclusions form the above paragraphs.

While I enjoy all the different types I listed and others I like one like John McClaine. He and others like him are what I think if as reluctant heroes. They don't go out of their way to save everyone, they simple do what they feel is right and necessary. John McClaine is a cop by profession and protects people as a matter of course, but the situations he finds himself in go well beyond what is considered "Duty" to most people. Another good example of a relictant hero comes from one of my favorite books, Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. Andrew Wiggin, or Ender as he's called by his sister, is a young boy on who's shoulders they fate of humanity is placed. He is trained and then manipulated into a fighting a war whether he wants to or not. The physiological, psychological and emotional hardships he goes through are tremendous and well portrayed in the writing. He is forced to kill and while knowing he had no choice he still suffers for it.

I also appreciate that the portrayals of these people shows them not to be infallible. They make mistakes and errors in judgement. They get injured and are forced forced to understand and accept that they have limitations. They make a choice and accept responsibility for them and the actions they take. In my own writing I lean toward the reluctant hero type. Most of my characters suffer injuries during fights, no matter how powerful they are, after all no matter how good you are they is always some better and random chance and luck.

Who do you think?

 

In the order that you asked them:

1) I wouldn't force myself to choose any of them if they weren't worthy.

2) I prefer a protagonist that is human. The average guy or gal with weaknesses and strengths that strives toward a goal. Someone with enough likability that you're compelled to care about them, almost to the point of wanting to help them yourself. At the same time they should be able to just as easily convince you of their ability to survive on their own.

3) I like being able to put myself in their shoes. If I can't do that I usually give up on the story from the beginning.

4) Your views are one sided. You compare writers to the producers of movies. In doing so, you've failed to capture the essence of what it is to be a writer. Movies are visual. Their story lines don't require too much fleshing out because of this. Things explode, protagonists kill, women cry, men avenge, the hero saves the day and everybody goes home with the knowledge that their city is safe for another hundred years and everything is right with the world. A story has to keep a reader's interest the entire way through. It can't have too many dull moments throughout its course or it loses an chance at telling its story.

 

Good thread!

My views on a couple high points:

Personally, I find the "reluctant hero" more fascinating than the super-hero or Bullett- or Rambo-type hero, whether I'm writing, reading, or watching. The reluctant hero has the appeal of being everyman/everywoman -- the guy who snatches a lost toddler from traffic without even thinking, executing moves a pro football player only dreams about, or the petite woman who rips open a car door to rescue a stranger from danger. These are the people you see on the human interest stories on the evening news or the ones on bystander's viral videos. They could be us.

Anti-heroes are interesting, too. The looter who risks capture or even his life trying to rescue a family from a collapsed building. The assassin who makes sure a toddler is safe before leaving the scene of his crime. The enemy soldier who comforts a crying child when he should be seeking cover.

Maybe it's because these people have weaknesses and flaws, like OHT said. The Walter Mitty in us would like to believe that we, too will someday be featured on the evening news, coughing and sweat-stained, with a sooty puppy wagging in one arm and an unharmed child in the other -- "Passerby Called Hero in House Fire".

Human interest sells local TV time, newspapers, movies, and fiction stories. I don't see that the depth of character development or a character's "reality" must necessarily be enhanced or restricted by the medium. The video media have plenty of opportunity to present us with three-dimensional, fully functional, believable characters, and sometimes they actually do it. The "print" media (anything written, including this) CAN be peopled with well-developed personalities too. In both cases, it's a matter of the skills and creative talents involved.

 

Andrew Wiggin is a strange case because of the way his story is presented. Ansset, Lanik Mueller, Ivan Smetski, and Jason Worthing are other characters by Card who are presented in a way that provides depth to the character.

When you comment on the differences between the superhero and the reluctant hero, I think that you also need to differentiate between the writers focus in the story. If the focus is on the hero exclusively, then there will be limited interaction giving them the depth that you desire.

A two dimensional character is normally created by a two dimensional writer. To examine characters who are developed in depth, you need to examine the collected works of the writers who do this: Stephen King, Orson Scott Card, Mercedes Lackey, etc. EACH of these authors builds their characters with the same care in each story that they write.

You can see the same dynamics in the writers on this site. Some create stories where the characters have that depth that you describe while others write stories which are formulaic in their content.

 

Hello?

What are you talking about? The characters you mention are main or Lead characters. Where they are involved in a fight or contest with another character then those involved are protagonists.

 

This may sound incredibly idiotic but are all main characters of a story the protagonists? Are there any 'exceptions to the rule'?

 

It's not an idiotic question Snow, people argue about it (pointlessly IMO). Originally there was only one protagonist and it's the lead actor, but sometimes people use the word to refer to other important characters as well. Personally I only use it in a context where people will know what I mean either way. Anyway it doesn't matter, these days one of its main uses is for smartasserie in forums... :excited:

 

From dictionary.com (link)

Contrariwise, ANTAGONIST has the following definition at that source (link)

Sounds like your vocabulary needs a little building, PP.

The main or lead character IS the protagonist and those that they come into conflict with are the ANTagonist.

Snow,
The protagonist will be the main character but some fail to realize that the protagonist can be an ANTI-hero as well. Please note that an anti-hero is not necessarily a villain but villains will always be arrayed against a hero. The supporting cast behind a protagonist are just that - supporting.

• Bilbo Baggins is the protagonist of The Hobbit even though without Thorin Oakenshield and his company of dwarves there would have been no story.
• Frodo is the protagonist of LOTR with Samwise Gamgee as a primary supporting character; Gollum is the antagonist in this story even though his appearances are very limited and the actual war is being fought against Sauron, Saruman, and their orcs and urukai.
• Carrie White is the protagonist in Steven Kings famous work even though she is definitely not a heroine and could be considered an anti-hero.

 

Gymgirl and Darthel - thanks, that does clear it up some.

 

There are four character types that are often the same thing in literature and movies.

1. The main character.
2. The hero.
3. The protagonist.
4. The viewpoint character.

Let's take Harry Potter as an example. He is most definitely the main character because the story revolves around him. He is also the hero and the protagonist (and I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between these two) because we want him to succeed. And for most of the story, with only a few exceptions, he's the viewpoint character because we see the story through his eyes.

They are not always the same, however. Some examples of separating the four:

Sherlock Holmes is the main character, the hero, and the protagonist, but Dr. Watson is the viewpoint character in the original stories.

In a lot of classic horror movies, the villain is the main character, but certainly not the hero or protagonist. For example, can you remember the name of a single character from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series other than Freddie Krueger?

In a similar way, Orson Scott Card argues that in the Star Wars movies, the main character is Darth Vader, not only because the main story arc of the entire series is about his fall and redemption, but because he's the guy calling the shots. Almost everything anyone does in Star Wars is a reaction to him. It's true that the Emperor is pulling his strings, but he's the one on the front lines actually getting his hands dirty.

 

My favorite characters are those that are created by artists possessed of a talent for the slow reveal.

The most memorable stories are those in which we learn about characters as the story proceeds. New dimensions, new layers.

Let's see... not necessarily movies...

Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. A book (and a musical, and a movie).

Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. A book (and a movie, and probably also an adapted play).

Unambiguous protagonists and antagonists are fun to watch. Once or twice. But they rapidly become boring.

I know, here's a movie. An action movie, even. A cheesy one. But I think it proves my point.

You ever watch Kurt Russell in the movie, Soldier? Now there's a villainous, ultraviolent, dispassionate lead role, presumably an antogonist of some kind or at least an "anti." Gradually, over the course of the movie, he reveals layers indicating a deeply buried humanity and compassion. Crappy movie, but great lead character and "hero" of sorts.

Another great movie along those lines, with a multi-layered blurring between protagonist and antagonist (and generally speaking also a better movie, period) would be Bladerunner. Is Deckard (Ford) the protagonist? Looks that way, right? The hero cop, trying to kill all the replicants and make the world safe for humanity. And Roy Batty (Hauer) is out to kill him. Definitely the antagonist, right? Well, if you've seen the movie (and who hasn't), I don't have to tell you how those tables are turned. By the time Roy Batty releases that white dove, you're weeping for him and wishing Deckard would just crawl off and die, already.

 

While I wouldn't go quite as far as wishing Deckard would crawl off and die, you're absolutely right that Roy Batty, the villain from the beginning of the movie, becomes the most sympathetic character by the end.

Another movie that does a good job of switching the roles between the hero and the villain is Pitch Black. At the beginning, Riddick is so scary that when they're talking about releasing him, you want to slap the characters in the face for even considering it, and tell them to put a bullet in his head instead. But by the end of the movie, he's the guy you're cheering for.

 

Reading the ongoing discussions here has brought some new insights as to how each author uses their characters in many different ways and rolls.

I do not watch many movies as they rarely can keep my attention. Yet one I have returned to watch is the film "Valkyrie." It's an incredible story that even if you know the history behind the situation you still hope for the plotters to overthrow Hitler and end the second world war though they will still fail in the end.

You can hate the guys for being 'the enemy' and serving in a system of purely sadistic darkness, yet at the same time you want to cheer them on, a true dicodamy indeed.

Every time I read a story or craft one I will be looking at them with new insights. Thanks all of you.

This is one thing of the forum I enjoy so much is we can have such discussions in a civilized manner and gain from each others experience.

 

Smartasseire?

Ah now I understand what that picture of the mules graduating college with the distinction of Magma-cum-laud means...

 

In reading through the replies so far I find myself intrigued by the varying perspectives. I did compare characters from both movies and books because they all have a story. Some movies had character depth like those of written fiction.

In reference the Kurt Russel and the movie Soldier. The character was the definition of a dark or anti hero type. A person engineered to be a warrior, to follow orders and was the best replaced by a new advanced warrior. Tossed away, having the entire structure of their life and reality ripped away. In that story, while he was the viewpoint and Hero character, the protagonists from my perspective were the catalyst for his change from destroyer into defender. That's just my point of view on the matter.

While I do agree that books allow for more character development that movies usually do, that isn't the rule as there have been a number of movies where the characters are fleshed out. Switching to the small screen for one of my favorite protagonist comes from a comedy series. I loved Eureka and the idea behind it. The main protagonist was Jack Carter, US Marshall turned small town sheriff in a town where houses had nuclear powered water heaters as a matter of course. While he wasn't the intellectual giant that most members of the community was he had street smarts, an adaptability for new situations and the willingness to put himself between the people of the town and total destruction of whatever experiment went haywire. if you watched the show unfold from beginning to end you would have seen his life fleshed out and the dignity and honorable standards that he held himself to. the character was genuinely likable and while starting as the reluctant hero, his sense of duty made him more as the show progressed.

Thank you to all those who have replied so far and I'm looking forward to reading other's opinions as well.

 

I have a question in regards to the protagonist/antagonist views of a story.

One story I finished a few weeks back centers around a 'Godfather' who attempts to get for his daughter 'the perfect graduation dance gown' and the chaos from rivals and mother nature to obtain it for her.

What I got to wondering is, can a force of nature become a form of protagonist in a story? Or is this a contradiction in terms?

 

In this case Snow, mother nature was an obstacle in the godfather's quest. The Grandfather was the Protagonist, the dress played the part of the MacGuffin and Mother nature could have been considered an antagonist and not just an obstacle

 

I've always liked the concept of the protagonist journey to villain.

You, know just watching the main character go from this possible hero to by the end of the story, really wondering if you want him to live or not just because he's awful. The hard part is making it so that you don't alienate the audience.

For instance, MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT, take Walter White from Breaking Bad. He starts out as just a chemistry teacher barely making end's meet, and within three seasons, he's turned into a vicious anit-hero to downright villain.

 

An excellent example of the Morality behind having Power and it's Use

 

Ok, just a few points:

The protaganist has to be someone likeable. I don't mean nice. They can often be a Payback-esqe anti-hero. But someone you could imagine yourself being or becoming in his/her situation. They need to be well thought out as to motivation and reaction toward the events of the plotline. And they need an equally well imagined antagonist.

The antagonist doessn't have to be nice at all, but his/her motivations and responses should be equally clear. Without him, what story does the protagonist have to tell? It would be like playing chess or checkers with only black pieces.

Conflict is everything in a good story. In the best ones, the protagonists doesn't even know what the game he's playing or who the bad guy really is until at least the middle of the story. Mis-direction helps by making the protagonist think he's supposed to do one thing when he's really heading straight for a metaphorical cliff. Supporting characters can help here.

Knowing what the protaganist thinks as well as what he says and does helps a lot to round him out. A tip on this point - don't let the reader know what everybody thinks unless it's important to the plot to do so. The less information they have about the inner thoughts and plans of non-major characters and the antagonist, the better on that score. After all, do you really know what anyone else thinks or do you have to figure out when they are being straight with you? And how else can they ever surprise you?