Heroes, protagonists, and viewpoint characters, but mostly heroes

graphic by Peg Ihinger

Just as “villain” and “antagonist” are frequently used as synonyms, “hero” and “protagonist” are also confused a lot. But there is an added factor for some people, namely, where “main character” and “viewpoint character” fit. So first, some definitions and examples.

“Main character” is a somewhat broader category than “protagonist.” Main characters have a big role in the story, and usually spend a lot of time on-stage. You can talk about “the main characters of the story,” meaning all of the major characters, or you can talk about “THE main character of the story” (emphasis mine), meaning the single protagonist. As far as I can see, this is the primary difference between “protagonist” and “main character”— that you can say “the main characters are Sherlock Holmes, John Watson, and James Moriarity,” but it doesn’t make sense to say “the protagonists are Sherlock Holmes, John Watson, and James Moriarity.”

The protagonist of a story is the character at the center—the one without whom the plot doesn’t move forward. Sometimes, this is because the protagonist is driving the plot (they have a goal and their repeated attempts to reach it keep things moving). It is, however, also possible to have a deeply reluctant protagonist who is struggling to get out of the plot (I’m looking at you, Ivan Vorpatril).

Protagonists don’t have to be fundamentally good or moral; some are anti-heroes, or outright villains. Heroes, on the other hand, are fundamentally good people who act on their convictions and do great deeds. They’re the ones who run into the burning building to save someone (bonus points if they’re rescuing a villain), tackle someone out of the way of the runaway car, blow the whistle on the corporation’s criminal activities, or otherwise take significant personal risks in order to Do The Right Thing. (Note that preaching about it occurs nowhere in this definition, though “writing a non-preachy hero” is something a lot of writers worry about.)

Viewpoint characters are the people through whose eyes the reader sees the story. While they can be heroes, protagonists, villains, or antagonists, they can also be sidekicks, outside observers, minions, or some other normally-minor character. Most omniscient viewpoint doesn’t have an explicitly defined viewpoint character at all (Steven Brust’s Kaavren stories are an obvious exception here). John Watson is the viewpoint character in most of the original Sherlock Holmes stories; Holmes himself I would call a protagonist but not a hero. Moriarity is clearly both an antagonist and a villain. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is the main character, protagonist, hero, and viewpoint character for the entire seven-book series.

The single most common piece of writing advice about writing heroes is “give them flaws,” which then proceeds to recommend various possible “flaws” that writers could incorporate. This has never been an approach that has worked at all well for me; it is far too close to the checklist method of creating characters. It also overlooks one major fact about heroes: nobody is born with a fundamentally good moral code and the inherent ability to always (or at least mostly) act on their convictions.

It is certainly possible to start a story with a protagonist who is already established as a hero. However, the stories I personally find most effective and interesting are about people who become heroes over the course of a novel or a series. These are people who, at the beginning of the story, are protagonists who have been living ordinary lives, and who have to struggle to rise to the challenges they face. Frodo was a perfectly ordinary hobbit who kept putting off leaving his comfy hobbit-hole; it was the journey to Rivendell that started him on the way to becoming a hero.

The second problem I have with the checklist of “hero flaws” is that a lot of them aren’t what I would consider a flaw in someone’s character. All the really negative character traits—dishonesty, selfishness, envy, cruelty, ruthlessness, arrogance, lack of empathy, greed, pride, anger—show up only in lists of “villain flaws.” The hero lists include things like insecurity, impatience, naivety, impulsiveness, stubbornness, or laziness; at worst, they include “flaws” such as clumsiness or wearing glasses. Compared to the lists of heroic character traits—courage, integrity, conviction, selflessness, compassion, humility, empathy, etc.—the flaws just don’t seem nearly as important.

Mind you, a character’s personal struggle with something like laziness, insecurity,  etc. can make for an interesting story. But as a character arc for a courageous, selfless, compassionate hero, they’re too minor (especially when compared to the struggle to save the kingdom/planet/universe) to hold up well as important flaws. Making them plot-relevant by having the flaw contribute to the hero’s actions often ends up making the “character flaw” look like the writer’s attempt to justify a convenient plot twist, rather than like the writer showing the down side of an inherent flaw in the hero’s character.

And the third problem I have with a lot of the hero advice is that it almost universally assumes that the hero, in his capacity as “hero,” is going to be the protagonist/main character of the story. Nobody talks about the secondary character who isn’t the center of the story, but who heroically saves the sidekick’s life. OK, this kind of character can take over the story if one isn’t careful…but they can also become a role model or mentor for a protagonist who is in the process of becoming a hero.

Each of these character types is good for some stories, but not for others. A plot-heavy action-adventure series may be a good fit for the protagonist/viewpoint character who is already a full-fledged hero. A story with an annoying, unlikeable protagonist may be better told from someone else’s point of view (either a character who admires the protagonist in spite of their negative character traits, or a character who finds the protagonist just as annoying as the reader while still acknowledging the value of their skills and strengths). A story that focuses on character growth and/or an emotional plot may be best with a complex protagonist/viewpoint character, an anti-hero protagonist, or a hero-in-training protagonist. In other words, as usual, there is no one true way.