What’s the difference between Hero, Main Character and Protagonist?
I have a supporting character that seems to fill a far greater purpose
than I originally anticipated. The supporting character fits
Wikipedia’s definition of Hero. However, your definition says hero and main character are synonymous.
In my story, the protagonist is the main character; it’s his story. But everything is affected by this supporting character’s possession of “character far greater than that of a typical person.”
Is it wheels off to have a main character and protagonist not be the hero in the end? Do you think the audience will feel cheated by a decision like this?
– Trey
Dallas, TX
We’re venturing into Dramatic Theory 101, so if you’re the type who begins squirming in your seat when professor-types talk about Joseph Campbell and character arcs, you can save yourself a lot of frustration by stopping after the following sentence:
In most cases, “Hero,” “Main Character,” and “Protagonist” are the same character.
Seriously, you can stop reading now. Here’s a nice article about raising orphaned squirrels.
Now, for readers who are still with me, let’s try to come up with more specific definitions for these three terms, and explore why they may apply to different characters in certain stories.
Hero
My incredibly-simplified definition: this is the character who you hope to see “win.” While it’s fine to think of Superman, or Aladdin, the hero doesn’t have to be noble, or courageous, or especially talented. As long as you’re rooting for him, that’s what matters.
Main Character
Just what it sounds like: this is the character who the story is mostly about. Confused? Often his or her name is in the title: Shrek, King Arthur, Tootsie, Citizen Kane.
Protagonist
The character who changes over the course of the story, travelling from Point A to Point B, either literally or figuratively. She learns and grows as the story progresses. Generally, Protagonists want something at the start of the tale, and discover they need something else.
Now, remember, most times, one character is all three of these things. For example, Ripley in Aliens is clearly the Hero (fighting the monster), the Main Character (the story is mostly about her), and the Protagonist (she reluctantly joins the trip, but ends up descending to the depths to fight for her “daughter”).
The same triple-aspect applies to Cher in Clueless, and John McClane in Die Hard. And it’s fine for movies to have “teams” of characters fulfiling these roles; in Charlie’s Angels, Dylan, Natalie and Alex are each Hero, Main Character and Protagonist.
However, in some stories, the Hero, the Protagonist and the Main Character are not all the same person. One very current example is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
There’s no question that Charlie’s the Hero. You want to see him win that Golden Ticket, and for only good things to happen to him. Likewise, he’s also the Main Character — though Wonka’s a close second. While Charlie recedes into the background a bit during the factory tour, he’s still the main focus of the movie’s storytelling energies. When the Narrator talks, it’s mostly to fill in details about Charlie.
However, Charlie is not a classic Protagonist. Charlie doesn’t grow or change over the course of the story. He doesn’t need to. He starts out a really nice kid, and ends up a really nice kid.
In terms of Classical Dramatic Structure, that leaves us one Protagonist short, which leads to the biggest change in the screenplay versus the book (or the 1971 film). In our movie, Willy Wonka is the protagonist. He grows and changes. We see his rise and fall, along with his nervous breakdown during the tour. Charlie’s the one who’s always asking — ever so politely, in the Freddie Highmore Whisper(TM) — the questions that lead to Wonka’s flashbacks upon his rotten childhood. (In Classic Dramatic terms, that makes Charlie an Antagonist. Not to be confused with a Villain. Are you sure you don’t want to read about some squirrels?)
As I pitched it to Tim: Charlie gets a factory, and Willy Wonka gets a family. It’s the whole want-versus-need thing. Charlie doesn’t need a factory. Wonka really needs a family. Otherwise, he’s going to die a giggling misanthropic weirdo.
Assigning labels
Playing “spot the protagonist” can be a good intellectual exercise — up to a point. As I started writing Charlie, asking “Who’s the protagonist?” led to some important decisions about the storytelling. But trying to pin firm labels on the characters in Go or Pirates of the Caribbean would only prove frustrating.
If a story works, it works — regardless of whether characters are fulfilling their archetypal roles. So be wary of trying to wedge characters into defined classes, simply because that’s how they “should” fit.
Articles
July 26th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Nice post. Helped me clarify a few problems I’ve had with a screenplay I’m working on. The director and I have been wrestling with this problem for months. I think we’ve got it figured out now. Kind of.
July 26th, 2005 at 11:48 am
And just what is wrong with dying “a giggling misanthropic weirdo?”
This isn’t something I really consciously think about as I’m writing. I try to let the story flow naturally from the characters, and if someone who’s not the main character unexpectedly does something heroic, then I just kind of shrug my shoulders and move on.
As you said, it really does no good trying to fit characters into certain archetypes. That ends up being akin to slamming your head against a wall over and over. If you try to force a character to do something, then it will come off as forced, instead of it being a natural thing that that person would do.
July 26th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Craig Mazin has a good post on the same - or at least a similar - topic.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Well here is another link to squirrels and storytelling in the world of buisness: http://www.stevedenning.com/squirrel.htm
July 26th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Thanks, John! This really cleared up my somewhat limited understanding about the differences and similarities between the three.
Dammit, John! I actually had to raise an orphaned squirrel a year ago. Where were you when I needed that link?!
July 26th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Only because it has struck a strange note of perplexity in me, I post here some thoughts about the movie Training Day that I also posted on Craig’s site.
Clearly, the main character is Denzel Washington’s character. He won the best actor oscar, while Ethan Hawke was nominated for supporting actor. Most people would probably agree that Washington was the main character.
However, Ethan Hawk’s character is clearly the protagonist, Washington the antagonist. And — our “main actor� (Washington) actually has less screen time than our “supporting actor� (only by a few minutes).
It raises for me interesting questions about what a hero truly is, and what a main character is, and that they don’t have to be the same.
I’ve heard that the James Bond movies are good examples of how a main character, James Bond, is actually sort of an antagonist, as his role is simply to stop the goals started by the villain whose actions move the story, which gives the villain more of a protagonist quality. This is a strange thought, but “scholars” talk about it from time to time.
July 26th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
A Tale of Two Cities‘ Sydney Carton is a pretty good example of a supporting character who serves as both hero and protagonist without becoming the central figure in the narrative.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
If one of your supporting characters begins exhibiting more heroic tendencies than your main character, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the secondary character needs to become the protagonist, if what’s more important to the story is how the central character deals with the events around him or her — including the “heroic” actions of someone else. Think of the difference between anti-hero Rick in “Casablanca” — obviously the protagonist — and the visibly more heroic character of Victor Laszlo. Laszlo may be more of a “hero” character, but there’s a reason the story is about Rick — he goes through the biggest change.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
I always think of Big Trouble in Little China when this debate comes up. Jack Burton is an interesting character. He is the hero and main character although he doesn’t change so maybe he isn’t the protagonist. But what makes him especially interesting is that even though he is the main character he hardly ever does anything.
Wang Chi is the one who makes all the decisions, wins all the fights, gets them out of traps, and moves the story forward. Jack Burton bumbles through the movie, occasionally shouts one liners, and generally just tags along. Even though this is the case, he still seems like the main character. Why? Maybe because he’s the one talking loudest?
July 26th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Excellent elaboration on these three terms, John! I have a different thought on them, though. Hero defines (in my term) a superdude in often unrealistic situations (think of that as comic heroes). Also, that applies to an unlikely ’small’ character (we think of him/her as a ‘protagonist) with very unlikely abilities or powers that he/she doesn’t realize that he/she possess (that always applies to the beginning of a particular story). I personally don’t like to use the term ‘hero’ since it has become quite too common and it doesn’t really explore the true potential,realism or intention of a major role. Main characters are essential roles that are the central part of the story. They can be good or bad or even both, depending on what the writers/directors/original authors have in mind. Note that there are more than just one person within the plot (without co-existence/cooperation, they’ll never succeed) either changing the world by storm or crushing people’s hope by force. Protagonist is no different from main characters, except that it’s more of a journey role (as John has said).
Well, that’s what I can think of!
July 26th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Sheer devil’s advocate: you could argue that in Die Hard, John McClaine, while undoubtably the Hero and the Main Character, isn’t necessarily the protagonist, for much the same reason Andrew cited for James Bond — McClaine’s goal is to visit his wife, and figure out a way to reconcile (or, more to the point, make HER reconcile), and just gets sucked into saving the day by sheer coincidence. By the time Hans Gruber shows up, McClaine’s personal goal is almost over — he’s made an attempt to patch up with his wife, failed, realized he’s a jerk and that things can’t keep going this way, the only thing he needs to do is apologize, which he’s inspired to do when he realizes he might not make it out alive. But once the robbery kicks in, Gruber is the one with a goal (robbing Nakatomi), and McClaine is trying to prevent it, to maintain the status quo. Now, Gruber is obviously a Villain, but as far as the plot of the main plot of the movie goes, he’s the one with the classic protagonist’s journey: he wants something, and either succeeds or fails to get it in the end.
(This isn’t my original theory; Steven Desouza said it first, but it made me realize that most Heroes in cop movies, superhero movies, et al, are purely reactive, and as such, tougher to classify as protagonists.)
July 26th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Good post… thanks for the insight. I’m certain this is one of those screenwriter topics that can spawn hours and hours of arguments… that truthfully come down to your last sentence.
July 27th, 2005 at 12:49 am
I don’t know what anybody else is talking about, because I stopped reading when you told me to. That link about orphaned squirrels was amazing, thanks! I had no idea that baby squirrels were having space issues within the nest…
July 27th, 2005 at 3:04 am
Andrew: I don’t think the academy awards are a good basis for determining a character’s role in a story. The awards are given based on performance with a generous peppering of politics (Russell Crowe in Gladiator over Tom Hanks in Castaway?) And face it, sometimes an actor’s presence can push them to the forefront. Denzel has an amazing presence. Remember any of his moments in Glory? Now what about Matthew Broderick’s?
In general, I tend to side with the camp that puts telling a good story ahead of hard-line character roles. In fact, this thread prompted my first official look at it regarding the piece I’m working on now. Yep, there they are, all in tact.
It makes me wonder, though. What do you think is the percentage of great writers who let these roles determine the course of their work and how many do you think just left it for the scholars to dissect after they’re done?
July 27th, 2005 at 5:57 am
Jp,
Continuing with your Die Hard thread, you could also argue that Sgt. Powell could be the protagonist. He definitely goes through probably the biggest change in the story, from a bored run-of-the-mill street cop to a savvy officer who saves McClaine’s ass more than once (especially at the very end.) In fact, you could almost say he’s the real hero.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:01 am
About Big Trouble in Little China, Wang Chi is the hero and the protagonist (and not to be confused with Hiro Protagonist). This is part of a game that Carpenter and the writers are playing. Jack Burton is presented as the hero, but he is really the sidekick. Burton acts the hero, but it often comes off as comic relief. This is covered in the DVD commentary.
July 27th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
John how did you come across the orphaned squirrel site?
July 27th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
I think overall… one word sums it up… “heart”. If you analyze to death the “role” of your characters, you are forcing them into areas that your imagination might not want them to go. Let your characters take on the role they desire, while following the strength of your story outline. We’ve all read stories that are “correct”, but lack any depth or heart.
July 27th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
p.s. If you want to read plenty of screenplays by fledgling screenwriters (and post your own for a critique as well), sign on to Triggerstreet.com. You will get plenty of comments about your characters, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
RE: Andrew Jame’s post on Training Day. “Clearly, the main character is Denzel Washington’s character.”
You’re way off the mark there pal. I’d say it’s Ethan Hawke who’s the hero and the protagonist and main character of that movie. Although a complex compelling character Denzel is the antagonist or villain of that movie. Not, as you suggest, the protagonist.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Correction: You said that Hawke was the protagonist. I apologise for that small error on my part.
I think that the whole confusion is more to do with marketing. Washington was the more bankable star and so he was prominent on all posters and DVD covers and got the Oscar nod. Same with Pulp Fiction. Sam L Jackson was nominated for supporting actor even though he has equal sceen time to Travolta. Travolta was more of a ‘name’. That’s more politics than screenwriting.
In terms of the story itself though Hawke is our main character. Peace.
July 27th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Thanks John for the great article!
Ok, but what about a complex story like Snow Crash that Neal Stephenson wrote (thanks Jeb for reminding me about Hiro;) )? Who is the protagonist? Is it Hiro Protagonist or Y.T.? They both change over the course of the story, and while Hiro is probably the “Hero”, the book focuses on both of them equally.
July 28th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Thank God, John.
I was just starting the scene in my animated feature where my two protagonist squirrles end up feeding each other IN THE COLD! Whoahh… I was way off. And I bet you thought you were just being random.
July 29th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
That was a great post John. Please don’t hold back on your “Dramatic Theory 101″ posts. I wish you would do it more often.
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:51 am
Re: CATCF - Wonka the protaganist.
Having now seen the film, my feeling is that making Wonka the protaganist really spoils the film. The film is great apart from that whole thread about Wonka and his father, and in my opinion turns the film from great to mediocre. The voiceover that then acompanies it all becomes “subtitles for the hard of thinking”, and the Wonka gets a family is just plain poor.
Shame.
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:51 pm
::SPOILERS ABOVE::
September 18th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I side with John…
People that want Charlie to ‘do more’ certainly aren’t pulling from Dahl. Charlie is already good, even in dire circumstances, you can’t have him morph ‘bad’ without ruining the story, and ‘better’ ruins it too. Better makes the ‘good’ less, therefore ‘bad’, as it is now less than ‘good’. Good just is.
Wonka is where the work lies. But that’s a Dahl theme, he gets into the kids-eye view, always the bumbling adult that needs the tune-up.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Hey, John.
A personal question: who’s your favorite story theoretician?
In this post I find hints of Lajos Egri, McKee, Campbell/Vogler and even a bit of Dramatica!
Care to comment on that?
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:15 pm
[...] As he noted, there are some great theories about agonists and how they work; John August’s General Theory of Heroic Relativity, Craig Mazin’s Special Theory of The Subtle Hero and the brilliant Thematic Character Structure Theory are excellent guides to agonists in a great many films. [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 3:21 am
I was wondering, can you explain symbolic overtones? Thank you.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:57 am
im an eng. lit student. well…i do realise that most of the time the protagonist is the hero…. but then i do wonder…must the hero or protag be human? or can it be other than human
March 10th, 2008 at 7:21 am
[...] repeatedly invoked John August’s blog post about heroes, protagonists, and main characters. Here it is. Writing Excuses Episode 5: Heroes and Protagonists [15:45m]: Play Now | Play in [...]
March 10th, 2008 at 7:28 am
[...] it was John August who bailed me out, but Professor Google performed the [...]
March 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
How about an analysis of The Lord of the Rings:
Hero = Aragorn Main Character = Frodo Protagonist = Gandalf