Posts
“Your protagonist must never act in a way that lowers her status below that of the antagonist.”
I read this line in the July/August Writer’s Digest, in an article titled “Raise Your
Characters Above the Status Quo” by Steven James. A great article, by the way, but what do you think about that statement?Status, as described in this article, is a character’s need or attempt at having a dominant role in social interactions. Body language, dialogue, and, of course, behavior illustrate status. Interesting characters undergo shifts in status and a protagonist must have areas of weakness or low status to be multi-faceted. That makes sense, right?
However, as the quote seems to be saying, a protagonist shouldn’t be submissive to an antagonist. Hmmm . . . interesting. Because readers would have more respect and affection for characters that show strength and courage and confidence? Okay. But must a protagonist always be heroic when confronted with the antagonist? I mean, Harry Potter got his butt kicked more than once by Lord Voldemort and his minions. Just sayin’. However, Harry did maintain his strength and dignity and confidence through the worst of circumstances, didn’t he? I never considered him wimpy when up against Voldemort. Did you?
Do you agree that a protagonist must never act in a way that lowers her status below that of the antagonist? I'd love to hear your thoughts as I think about this.
Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention! :) I love Sarah Dessen and I'll have to pick up a copy.
ReplyDeleteAs for the article, it really depends on the situation. NEVER is such a strong word, it could depend on the mental/emotional part of what's going on with the protagonist plus also on the strengths of the antagonist.
Thanks for the comment on my blog :) And...great to "meet" you!
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post!...now I'll have to go check out that article.
I agree with Karen - I think it depends on the situation. And, by "act" does that mean integrity? Because you're right - Harry did get his but kicked but who HE was was pretty consistant. I never considered him wimpy! (ps I love Hermione)
On most occassions, the reader shouldn't empathize with the antagonist more than the protagonist. Unless, of course, that's the point of the story.
I do agree, mostly because the hero of the book must be the hero. The most successful books are those with a MC who doesn't let us down, someone who fights for what's good and right no matter the cost. The antagonist can't win! (New follower here.)
ReplyDeleteI suppose I am from the Never Say Never camp...sometimes doesn't the hero take a walk on the dark side?
ReplyDeleteThings in stories aren't always black and white.
Hmmm...I love when something makes me really think!
Shelley
I'll take the devil's advocate side here. In the END I agree. They should persevere in some way. BUT there's a character arc involved, no? So it probably does depend on the book/situation/character involved, but I'd say it could happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Karen. I think the word "never" is what snagged me. Never is so unforgiving.
ReplyDeleteWelcome, Barbara! Nice to "meet" you, too. Thanks for the great comment.
Welcome to you, too, Emily. I think you've nailed what Steven James is trying to say in his article, but I wonder if the protagonist can or should stumble along the way as long as he or she doesn't wither under the dominance of the antagonist.
I, too, love when something makes me think, Shelley, and this quote and article has stayed with me. Thus, this blog post. ; )
Thinking about the character arc and the ways in which a character must change is exactly why I keep getting hung up on "never," Lisa. I wonder if a protagonist could be submissive, even if briefly and as long as he or she perseveres in the end.
Well, there is always the anti-hero who doesn't want to be a hero, who is forced into the role somewhat against his/her will. Sometimes the anti-hero can be not only the underdog, but be quite unlikable and more like an antagonist than a protagonist. Getting the anti-hero to do the right thing can be extremely difficult. So, I'm not sure that the status of the protag should NEVER fall below that of the antag. What the protag HAS to do is at some point rise above that of the antag, has to grow and become, even if only in a small way, a better person.
ReplyDeleteKevin Costner plays a reluctant anti-hero in Water World.
I'm not too sure about that.
ReplyDeleteI mean, my protagonist does some pretty despicable things, things he wouldn't have done if he weren't pushed to the brink. Whereas the antagonist just makes an offer and lets things happen around him.
I think the difference is that the protagonist learns something in the end and somehow becomes better than he was. The antagonist just keeps muddling through as he always does. That is, if he were still alive, of course!
No, I don't agree. Of course, I haven't read the article and James may be using "status" to mean something different from what I perceive. But generally, I think the protagonist can be mean, or weak, or befuddled, or selfish, at points in the book. The protagonist can be "worse" than the antagonist. I think we generally want the protagonist to END at a higher level than the antagonist, but I think that a power struggle is more interesting if we see the flaws in *both* of those who are struggling!
ReplyDeleteI think if the quote was true, we'd never feel like our protagonist were real. I think we hope, as Jennifer said, to see our protagonist end up better than the antagonist. What's in the story if we don't see this struggle?
ReplyDeleteGreat question. Thinking about HP, weren't there a couple of times when he was up against Voldemort and feeling pretty wimpy? Although I guess he always maintained a sense of inner strength. I do like it when I *think* a character is toying with the dark side and then comes back to the light.
ReplyDeleteI agree--never say never!!!
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Bish! A reluctant hero can be a really interesting character. Although, I have to admit that I've never seen Water World. Sorry, Kevin.
ReplyDeleteNancy, I love the point you made about a protagonist being pushed into doing things that he or she might not normally do.
Jenn, you bring up interesting issues here. A protagonist can have negative qualities, but only at points in the story, not consistently, right? I'm reminded of the debate regarding reliable characters. Overall, I prefer a sympathetic and likable protagonist, but it's true that a good struggle is fascinating.
Another great point, Ashley. Real people have low moments of submission and weakness every day. And we want our characters to feel real to us when we're reading.
Oh, I love it when a character flirts with the dark side, but inevitably ends up in the light. Great stuff.
I love that phrase, never say never, Lydia. : )
I think "never" is too strong. But I do think most protagonists keep an inner integrity, a refusal to totally sell out to the dark side, even if they're feeling darkish at times. So maybe the antag can go all the way to bad, but the protag must be conflicted about that?
ReplyDeleteGreat comment, Marcia. I actually prefer a protagonist that keeps his or her inner integrity and doesn't sell out, but I think a story is more interesting when that protagonist struggles.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question! I guess it all depends on what you call status. I think that the actions of the hero should be not as 'evil' as the antagonist, but protags have to be allowed mistakes and actions that aren't always perfect. Perhaps that aren't always even heroic.
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy books where they dig themselves into a hole by their own actions but then learn from their mistakes.
I suppose "inner integrity" as Marcia said is what helps them out. Definitely a thought-provoking question!
I totally believe that! Once you get the reader having more sympathy for the antagonist than they have for the protagonist, you're in deep trouble. It doesn't mean the protag can't get their butt kicked-- it just means they can't be a worse person than the antagonist.
ReplyDeleteIt is thought provoking, isn't it, Janet? Like you, I also enjoy situations where the protagonist gets herself (or himself) into a bind and has to work to get out of it.
ReplyDeleteYou are so right Peggy--a reader shouldn't develop more sympathy for the antagonist. So, as long as the protagonist is a better person, he or she maintains dominance, right?
Such great comments from everyone! : )
It's thought provoking indeed! I think the hero, no matter how many times he fails/ makes the wrong decision should always have a moral compass to point him due north. After all, that is what makes him a hero.
ReplyDeleteNutschell
www.thewritingnut.com
Never is a big word. I'd say usually - following your Harry example. I expect my characters to have good morals and act accordingly, but I also expect them to make mistakes and to try to fix them.
ReplyDeleteNever is such a permanent word. I'm not sure I'd go with 'never'. Although, my protags always do, I have read some great books where the hero does not and it still works.
ReplyDeleteI think allowing a protagonist to be of "lower status," assuming it means what I think it does, allows for some of the amazing reversals we see in great stories. How many wonderful underdog stories are there in which the protag is initially weaker/more cowardly/less prepared than the villian? And I enjoy the plot device of a protag being over-confident and a little selfish and then getting his butt kicked to get him into gear. This happens often in sequels--Rocky 2, Iron Man 2, etc. I think "never" is too strong and limiting; it all depends whether the writer can pull it off.
ReplyDeleteI might possibly lose respect for the protagonist if he/she does nothing to help him/herself in the long run. Losing a run-in or two won't kill my respect though.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Nutschell and Jemi: Having sufficient morals and using them as guidance makes a protagonist dominant in my eyes, too, even as that character stumbles and makes mistakes.
ReplyDeleteJennie, after this fabulous discussion, I am itching to do some kind of study of protagonists that do and don't act in ways that lower their status below that of antagonists. : )
Such a great comment about reversals, Eve! It really is gratifying to watch a character go from down low to top dog. And now that you've brought it up, I also enjoy watching a protagonist shake his or her arrogance to get his or her act together-- and to be rewarded for that in the end. It's interesting that this is most often seen in sequels, after the protagonist has reached the top in the first movie or book.
J.L., I'm so glad you brought up respect! Having respect for the protagonist really is at the heart of the matter, isn't it? I think I almost gain more respect for a character who gets his butt kicked and stlll gets up ready to continue on in pursuit of the goal. P.S. Now I'm going to have Aretha Franklin singing in my head all day. : )
Cynthia - I'll have to check out that article. I think the Hero of the story must be the Hero. Great post with great follow-up comments. You really get people thinking.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard this theory. I like the idea of the MC being kicked to the curb, but they have the tenacity to get back up and persevere.
ReplyDeleteAww, thanks, Maeve. And it really is a great article. I love WRITER'S DIGEST.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Julie. That seems to be what most people think--okay to have a character's status low during the struggle, but in the end, he or she should be on top.
Never is a strong word. I think it's okay to torture our flawed MCs, so that they are at low points from which they can improve themselves and come out on top.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Medeia. Thanks for stopping by and commenting. : )
ReplyDeletein agreement with most, if the protagonist is 'perfect', i quickly lose interest, since there is no reason for 'growth'
ReplyDeleteone of the reasons i'm attracted to a story is to see how flaws are resolved, or at least attempted at resolution....
Great points, Laughingwolf. Reading to see how characters work out or resolve situations really is part of the joy that comes with the ride. Thanks!
ReplyDelete