Thank you for watching! Check out these other videos too: Writers, Don't K*ll Your Characters!: th-cam.com/video/tiQl8kGOGo8/w-d-xo.html 4 Tips on Writing the Beginning of Your Story: th-cam.com/video/Z0heZHok3NA/w-d-xo.html
Just hoping I have this correct: Main character: Who the audience follows - acts as the guide for the audience - viewpoint center Protagonist: Drives the plot - actions cause the plot to happen OR actions directly effect the plot Hero: Character who actively strives to solve the conflict at the center of the plot - moral center
Yes! Just one correction (sort of...). The Main Character is WHO the story is mostly about, in addition to your notes. Instead of thinking of them as a viewpoint character, think of them as the focal point of the story. Thank you for watching and for your comment.
@@wrestlingwithwords Ohhhh.. I get it, they're a story focus, not so much an audience viewpoint. That's an important distinction, thank you. And thank YOU for such a wonderful channel!
Death Note serves as a good example too. L and Light are both protagonists because they drove the plot. But only Light is the main character because the story is about him.
Just wow… I have 3 “main characters” in my current story and I have been struggling about with which terms should I describe them. I concluded with this video that: The character my story starts and ends with, the one whom drives the plot with his moves (but he doesn’t appear much in the story actually) is the *protagonist* (And well, since his intentions are bad also the anti-hero, I suppose?) The character who appears later but almost is in every scene afterwards that we basically read his journey is the *main character* And the character who also appears later and does the “slay the dragon” part, one who shows and embraces the themetic values is the *hero* Thank you! I can’t believe it was this easy! (Though- I guess I kind of didnt get the difference between the protagonist and the main character. Did I understand correctly?)
YES! That is about right. Don't include anti-heroes in this part though. Anti-heroes are a different bucket. The main character is the one that the plot impacts the most (and who usually goes through the most change), whereas the Protagonist is the one who is advancing the plot. Both of these are commonly ascribed to the same character (which can be the case and is the norm).
@@wrestlingwithwords Glad I understood it correctly (I edited that comment numerous times since I wasn't sure about the placements of the terms protagonist and main character 😭🤚) And well he is definitely not a villain but his beliefs, actions and intentions are the opposite of the main message/theme of the story. (Other two, the hero and the main character, feels/ will feel positive about this theme; but him, the protagonist, feels and still will feel negative) Would this not make him an anti-hero? (I thought it would) Or would he stay only under the protagonist label?
He can still be the main character and his arc might be positive/negative/flat. An anti-hero is just an archetype a character can fit into. They might still be the hero of the story, but they do so through unheroic means. I hope that helps!
It might be helpful to look at what the opposite of these terms is. For "hero", it can be a less determined, more hesitant character. It can be a person who just reacts or suffers. But "hero" is often also seen as the opposite of "villain". In this sense, a hero is just a good guy who fights the bad guys. Many times, who's good or bad lies in the eye of the beholder though. Many classic heroes aren't really good guys, in my opinion. (Not even "anti heroes", which is another interesting topic.) "Main character" defines one or a few characters who are the most important. Most important for the writer and, as the writer thinks or hopes, for the reader. The opposite are less important, less interesting characters. But I think this also lies in the eye of the beholder. For me as a reader or movie watcher, totally different characters can be interesting, thus important, while I don't really care for those who are important for the author. This isn't really a problem, as long as there are interesting characters. The author should keep in mind that any character can be important for some reader though, and try to avoid loose ends. The opposite of "protagonist" is "antagonist", obviously. One drives the plot forward while the other obstructs him. Again, it's in the eye of the beholder, as anyone is the protagonist of his own story. A can watch it from two sides. Who is the protagonist of a murder mystery, for example? Is it really the detectice? Or is it the killer, whose identity we don't even know, but whose actions cause all the other characters' reactions?
These differences seem small but after watching your video I’ve changed my view on them. If it it matters to your story, these can be a big deal! During my next outline I will keep these distinctions in mind!
The classic example I use is To Kill a Mockingbird. Where Scout is the main character the person we connect most and experience the story through while Atticus is the protagonist, driving the main plot.
I like the dynamic between protagonist and main character. I hero, however, I think is more of an archetype, rather than a fundamental characteristic of writing. It's commonly associated with the main character, though often also works as a protagonist.
While TRUE 'hero' is an archetype, it is also a device. Think of someone or something you are rooting for. Take a sports show about an underdog football team. The main character might be the head coach, but the young quarterback is the hero who throws the game-winning touchdown. Thank you for the comment and for watching!
This is semantics---that's not to say it's meaningless. Words are tools by which we divide up the world. The distinctions between these technical terms is only real in so far as they are relevant. Personally, I find the distinction between protagonist and main character most helpful, though instead of "main character", I prefer the more self explanatory term "viewpoint" or "viewpoint character". Though the viewpoint character has always been the intended protagonist in my books, I have found it useful in this way: it reminds me to make sure my viewpoints are properly protaging, pushing the plot forward rather than weakly watching. The hero seems more nebulously connected to the discussion. As you mentioned, Samwise is a hero, but that doesn't stop Frodo and Gandalf and Aragon and dozens more from being heroes too. The term hero is useful, but I don't think it is relevant here. I'm curious what yall think of this: hero implies goodness, but epistemologically, goodness is debatable. The reason there can be objective good guys and bad guys in stories is that the story itself is an ethical framework. So though maybe not universally a good guy, the heroes are the good guys within the framework of a text. In my own writing, I don't like to think with hero and villain, but rather "champion of this worldview" and "champion of that worldview". Even though I as a writer have my worldview and am not against using narrative to argue for it, I still find it helpful to avoid pejorative terms so as to face my foes fairly.
I actually love this comment. Exploring the terms and using them to examine other stories (and my own at times) can be really beneficial. The hero however is something that I've seen as tightly associated with the main character and protagonist, but wanted to talk about it as a separate device. There is, however, added confusion because a 'hero' is also an archetype that (as you explained) implies some virtuous goodness, as opposed to being the 'hero of the story'. Either way, I find these things interesting and sometimes helpful, and am glad that others do too. Thank you again for watching and for your thoughtful comment.
Well written and narrated this time. Congratulations. It is in keeping with your writing style. Like mine, it is very dense and so you might encourage people feel free to listen several times to better grasp the material. So much material nowadays is just instant gratification and discard, unlike older material where people owned only a few books that they read and reread many times. I am still working on rewiring my brain to make descriptions more interesting. I tried to mention it in chat yesterday, but that is a very limited platform and so it probably made no sense. One of the moments I still remember is stumbling upon the Eddas and seeing where Tolkien got some of the Dwarven names from. It really adds something to the story. In my story, so many of the words I used have such a deeper meaning, like a comment the protagonist makes about another character turns out to be mistaken, but it accurately reflects her own situation. Thereby preparing the reader for that issue without being obvious about it. Now Gerald Durrell in Rosy is my Relative, spends most of a chapter preparing the reader for a grand ball by detailing all of the preparations. You know something disastrous is going to happen, and it does, in hilarious fashion, at least for me. Without that buildup, the event would not have been all that funny, just a video short, not something memorable. So, any advice on how to distinguish between shorts and memorable events? What tools specifically heighten tension?
Thank you for the kind words and for watching. I really appreciate it. Also, thank you for the update on your work. In terms of heightening tension, there should be a tug of-war between a character wanting or needing something and then having there be some obstacle in the way of them achieving it. That "thing" can be abstract or physical. And what will add more tension on top of that is forcing the character to sacrifice something for that thing they want or need. Tension can feel a lot like pressure. You can't really ever SEE pressure, but you can feel it. So anyway you can apply pressure onto a character in a scene, and you will likely be also applying tension for the audience. As for the short vs. more memorable events, I would make sure the sum of those short events can add up or at least relate to whatever the larger one is. Something short can still have weight to it and can still be seen as important to the reader/audience.
I like how you think. I totally get it. I'm definitely going to think about it more. I think for me, R2D2 was one of the biggest heroes of the original Star Wars franchise. But was not a Main Character or protagonist.
The semantics of the terminology of "main character" is in itself an interesting topic. Some of it has to do with the context of how you are viewing the story. As with lotr, the main characters IN the telling of the story arent what id consider to be the main character OF the story. Which is Sauron Looking at in that way, the antagonist of any story is going to be a "main character" because you need that originating problem or hurdle for the protagonist to overcome to begin with. But, like I said, not necessarily a main character in the telling of the story.
Interesting perspective. The idea that we are all the main character in our own story is an important concept to have to give characters depth. Thank you for watching and for your comment.
While I agree on most of what you say here, there are one or two things I disagree with. I wouldn't say the protagonist is inherently who drives the plot *forward*, rather, they are the ones who act against the antagonistic force. While in most cases, these are the same thing, if we are talking about fringe and exceptional cases for the purpose of trying to draw these lines, then I would argue that there are many characters who drive the plot forward without being the protagonist. This is especially true in stories where the protagonist and the main character are different, and the protagonist is removed before the story is completely over. It's not like The Great Gatsby ends the moment Gatsby dies, even though I would say he is the primary protagonist. It is his conflict that the story revolves around, and his actions are the ones against that conflict. However, I would say that Nick is both the main character and the character that drives the plot forward. It is Nick's actions that actually move the plot along, Nick's initiative to help Gatsby, and Nick who acts as a confidant to Gatsby and a narrator to the story that allows the story to keep moving. Similarly, I would argue that the actions of Arthur Morgan are primarily what allow the plot to keep moving in RDR2. Even ignoring the ludonarrative dissonance, it is Arthur's course of action that moves the story along. But you are correct, Dutch is the protagonist. There are large swaths of RDR2 that Dutch, either through apathy, ignorance, or active resistance, does not touch, but Arthur does, and they play as key points in the overall story of RDR2 in itself and in its role as a prequel to RDR1. Dutch, however, is the main actor against the overall conflict against the growth of civilization and its implications against those who value the older-style western life. Another thing I had a slight disagreement with was a small note near the end where you stated "Unless the author states..." that x character is x role, it's up to the audience interpretation. I would say that it is still primarily up to the audience, death of the author and all that. If Fitzgerald came back from the dead and said The Great Gatsby's main character is Myrtle, actually, very few people would agree.
We watched "Ivanhoe" (Anthony Andrews 1980's version) the other night and I was thinking of this video. While he was for sure the hero, he was decidedly NOT the protagonist, as he spends most of his time injured and even when he's not, everyone else making decisions about what he's to do. I don't even think he was the main character. Amusingly, he's more of a 'damsel in distress' with everyone else coming to his rescue until the very end. There doesn't seem to be one single character making all the decisions and most of the POV's are about how they feel and think about Ivanhoe, except the antagonists who are focused on stealing the 2 women who love him. I would love to know your take on who the Main Character or protagonist is. I guess it is possible that Ivanhoe represents Honor and the rest of the characters must act honorably in order to save him. So the main character and protagonist is the concept of Honor?
Great video. I’d submit another example of a story that has the roles split: Harry Potter A potentially controversial pick for some, perhaps, but I’d argue that Dumbledore is the true Protagonist while Harry is the Hero & Main Character. Dumbledore’s driving of the plot that impacts Harry, from book 1 to book 7
Well, this video DID leave out Point of View characters. Much like the three terms referenced in the video, POV characters are often the same as the hero, protagonist, and main character. But sometimes, the Point of View character is someone separate altogether.
I have tried to write more in a way that is not outlined based. And I have noticed that this is better for me. That makes me more insecure in who is protagonist and who is hero and main character. I also have two point of views (two brothers separated at the inciting incident) how do I know who is driving the plot forward? Thank you for all of your videos, they have helped me a lot! /Tom
Thank you for the question and the comment! In your case, it might be a factor that there are two protagonists with two parallel plots going on. This happened in The Witcher (TV show, Season 1). It is sometimes hard to nail down who is the protag without more information, but there are also so many different routes you can go. Are the brothers trying to return to one another? If so, then maybe one is playing a more active role in that while the other has given up. Can one brother become the antagonist and the other the protagonist? Is one brother trying to stop the other from reaching or obtaining some goal? Have they given up on reuniting and are just living separate lives trying to reach separate goals? If so, then you might have two parallel plots and protags. A big thing to look at would be the goals of the characters and the goal of the narrative. Who is trying to reach that goal? Are they actively taking steps to reach that? If yes to all of those, then they are probably the protagonist! Thank you again for the comment. I am glad my videos are helpful!
True! Normally I use them as a way to plot and plan, or I'll use them as a way to analyze why a character(s) is or isn't working. Thank you for watching!
I understand what you’re trying to say, but saying that Sam Gsmgee isn’t a main protagonist/main character? Well it’s just not true. He moves the plot along more often than Frodo in some cases.
Thank you for watching! Check out these other videos too:
Writers, Don't K*ll Your Characters!: th-cam.com/video/tiQl8kGOGo8/w-d-xo.html
4 Tips on Writing the Beginning of Your Story: th-cam.com/video/Z0heZHok3NA/w-d-xo.html
Just hoping I have this correct:
Main character: Who the audience follows - acts as the guide for the audience - viewpoint center
Protagonist: Drives the plot - actions cause the plot to happen OR actions directly effect the plot
Hero: Character who actively strives to solve the conflict at the center of the plot - moral center
Yes! Just one correction (sort of...). The Main Character is WHO the story is mostly about, in addition to your notes. Instead of thinking of them as a viewpoint character, think of them as the focal point of the story. Thank you for watching and for your comment.
@@wrestlingwithwords Ohhhh.. I get it, they're a story focus, not so much an audience viewpoint. That's an important distinction, thank you.
And thank YOU for such a wonderful channel!
Of course! Thank you for the question again, I am glad I was able to help :).
Death Note serves as a good example too. L and Light are both protagonists because they drove the plot. But only Light is the main character because the story is about him.
Reading the witcher at a young age made me realize that I love non-heroic protagonists
Me too. I think they are so much more complex than typical archetypical "heroes".
Your videos are so thought out and stands out from the other writing channels, well done.
Thank you for saying so and thank you for watching!
Just wow… I have 3 “main characters” in my current story and I have been struggling about with which terms should I describe them.
I concluded with this video that:
The character my story starts and ends with, the one whom drives the plot with his moves (but he doesn’t appear much in the story actually) is the *protagonist* (And well, since his intentions are bad also the anti-hero, I suppose?)
The character who appears later but almost is in every scene afterwards that we basically read his journey is the *main character*
And the character who also appears later and does the “slay the dragon” part, one who shows and embraces the themetic values is the *hero*
Thank you! I can’t believe it was this easy!
(Though- I guess I kind of didnt get the difference between the protagonist and the main character. Did I understand correctly?)
YES! That is about right. Don't include anti-heroes in this part though. Anti-heroes are a different bucket. The main character is the one that the plot impacts the most (and who usually goes through the most change), whereas the Protagonist is the one who is advancing the plot. Both of these are commonly ascribed to the same character (which can be the case and is the norm).
@@wrestlingwithwords Glad I understood it correctly (I edited that comment numerous times since I wasn't sure about the placements of the terms protagonist and main character 😭🤚)
And well he is definitely not a villain but his beliefs, actions and intentions are the opposite of the main message/theme of the story. (Other two, the hero and the main character, feels/ will feel positive about this theme; but him, the protagonist, feels and still will feel negative)
Would this not make him an anti-hero? (I thought it would) Or would he stay only under the protagonist label?
He can still be the main character and his arc might be positive/negative/flat. An anti-hero is just an archetype a character can fit into. They might still be the hero of the story, but they do so through unheroic means. I hope that helps!
It might be helpful to look at what the opposite of these terms is.
For "hero", it can be a less determined, more hesitant character. It can be a person who just reacts or suffers. But "hero" is often also seen as the opposite of "villain". In this sense, a hero is just a good guy who fights the bad guys. Many times, who's good or bad lies in the eye of the beholder though. Many classic heroes aren't really good guys, in my opinion. (Not even "anti heroes", which is another interesting topic.)
"Main character" defines one or a few characters who are the most important. Most important for the writer and, as the writer thinks or hopes, for the reader. The opposite are less important, less interesting characters. But I think this also lies in the eye of the beholder. For me as a reader or movie watcher, totally different characters can be interesting, thus important, while I don't really care for those who are important for the author. This isn't really a problem, as long as there are interesting characters. The author should keep in mind that any character can be important for some reader though, and try to avoid loose ends.
The opposite of "protagonist" is "antagonist", obviously. One drives the plot forward while the other obstructs him. Again, it's in the eye of the beholder, as anyone is the protagonist of his own story. A can watch it from two sides. Who is the protagonist of a murder mystery, for example? Is it really the detectice? Or is it the killer, whose identity we don't even know, but whose actions cause all the other characters' reactions?
These differences seem small but after watching your video I’ve changed my view on them. If it it matters to your story, these can be a big deal! During my next outline I will keep these distinctions in mind!
The classic example I use is To Kill a Mockingbird. Where Scout is the main character the person we connect most and experience the story through while Atticus is the protagonist, driving the main plot.
Yep, exactly!
I like the dynamic between protagonist and main character. I hero, however, I think is more of an archetype, rather than a fundamental characteristic of writing. It's commonly associated with the main character, though often also works as a protagonist.
While TRUE 'hero' is an archetype, it is also a device. Think of someone or something you are rooting for. Take a sports show about an underdog football team. The main character might be the head coach, but the young quarterback is the hero who throws the game-winning touchdown. Thank you for the comment and for watching!
This is semantics---that's not to say it's meaningless. Words are tools by which we divide up the world. The distinctions between these technical terms is only real in so far as they are relevant. Personally, I find the distinction between
protagonist and main character most helpful, though instead of "main character", I prefer the more self explanatory term "viewpoint" or "viewpoint character". Though the viewpoint character has always been the intended protagonist in my books, I have found it useful in this way: it reminds me to make sure my viewpoints are properly protaging, pushing the plot forward rather than weakly watching.
The hero seems more nebulously connected to the discussion. As you mentioned, Samwise is a hero, but that doesn't stop Frodo and Gandalf and Aragon and dozens more from being heroes too. The term hero is useful, but I don't think it is relevant here.
I'm curious what yall think of this: hero implies goodness, but epistemologically, goodness is debatable. The reason there can be objective good guys and bad guys in stories is that the story itself is an ethical framework. So though maybe not universally a good guy, the heroes are the good guys within the framework of a text.
In my own writing, I don't like to think with hero and villain, but rather "champion of this worldview" and "champion of that worldview". Even though I as a writer have my worldview and am not against using narrative to argue for it, I still find it helpful to avoid pejorative terms so as to face my foes fairly.
I actually love this comment. Exploring the terms and using them to examine other stories (and my own at times) can be really beneficial. The hero however is something that I've seen as tightly associated with the main character and protagonist, but wanted to talk about it as a separate device. There is, however, added confusion because a 'hero' is also an archetype that (as you explained) implies some virtuous goodness, as opposed to being the 'hero of the story'. Either way, I find these things interesting and sometimes helpful, and am glad that others do too.
Thank you again for watching and for your thoughtful comment.
Well written and narrated this time. Congratulations. It is in keeping with your writing style. Like mine, it is very dense and so you might encourage people feel free to listen several times to better grasp the material. So much material nowadays is just instant gratification and discard, unlike older material where people owned only a few books that they read and reread many times.
I am still working on rewiring my brain to make descriptions more interesting. I tried to mention it in chat yesterday, but that is a very limited platform and so it probably made no sense. One of the moments I still remember is stumbling upon the Eddas and seeing where Tolkien got some of the Dwarven names from. It really adds something to the story. In my story, so many of the words I used have such a deeper meaning, like a comment the protagonist makes about another character turns out to be mistaken, but it accurately reflects her own situation. Thereby preparing the reader for that issue without being obvious about it.
Now Gerald Durrell in Rosy is my Relative, spends most of a chapter preparing the reader for a grand ball by detailing all of the preparations. You know something disastrous is going to happen, and it does, in hilarious fashion, at least for me. Without that buildup, the event would not have been all that funny, just a video short, not something memorable.
So, any advice on how to distinguish between shorts and memorable events? What tools specifically heighten tension?
Thank you for the kind words and for watching. I really appreciate it. Also, thank you for the update on your work. In terms of heightening tension, there should be a tug of-war between a character wanting or needing something and then having there be some obstacle in the way of them achieving it. That "thing" can be abstract or physical. And what will add more tension on top of that is forcing the character to sacrifice something for that thing they want or need. Tension can feel a lot like pressure. You can't really ever SEE pressure, but you can feel it. So anyway you can apply pressure onto a character in a scene, and you will likely be also applying tension for the audience.
As for the short vs. more memorable events, I would make sure the sum of those short events can add up or at least relate to whatever the larger one is. Something short can still have weight to it and can still be seen as important to the reader/audience.
I like how you think. I totally get it. I'm definitely going to think about it more. I think for me, R2D2 was one of the biggest heroes of the original Star Wars franchise. But was not a Main Character or protagonist.
Thank you for watching and for the kind words!
Another very helpful video!
The semantics of the terminology of "main character" is in itself an interesting topic.
Some of it has to do with the context of how you are viewing the story. As with lotr, the main characters IN the telling of the story arent what id consider to be the main character OF the story.
Which is Sauron
Looking at in that way, the antagonist of any story is going to be a "main character" because you need that originating problem or hurdle for the protagonist to overcome to begin with. But, like I said, not necessarily a main character in the telling of the story.
Interesting perspective. The idea that we are all the main character in our own story is an important concept to have to give characters depth.
Thank you for watching and for your comment.
In Fury Road, warboy Nux (Nicholas Hoult) has the most heroic arc, the most character change.
Oh totally! his arc brings a tear to my eye 🥲
While I agree on most of what you say here, there are one or two things I disagree with.
I wouldn't say the protagonist is inherently who drives the plot *forward*, rather, they are the ones who act against the antagonistic force. While in most cases, these are the same thing, if we are talking about fringe and exceptional cases for the purpose of trying to draw these lines, then I would argue that there are many characters who drive the plot forward without being the protagonist. This is especially true in stories where the protagonist and the main character are different, and the protagonist is removed before the story is completely over. It's not like The Great Gatsby ends the moment Gatsby dies, even though I would say he is the primary protagonist. It is his conflict that the story revolves around, and his actions are the ones against that conflict.
However, I would say that Nick is both the main character and the character that drives the plot forward. It is Nick's actions that actually move the plot along, Nick's initiative to help Gatsby, and Nick who acts as a confidant to Gatsby and a narrator to the story that allows the story to keep moving.
Similarly, I would argue that the actions of Arthur Morgan are primarily what allow the plot to keep moving in RDR2. Even ignoring the ludonarrative dissonance, it is Arthur's course of action that moves the story along. But you are correct, Dutch is the protagonist. There are large swaths of RDR2 that Dutch, either through apathy, ignorance, or active resistance, does not touch, but Arthur does, and they play as key points in the overall story of RDR2 in itself and in its role as a prequel to RDR1. Dutch, however, is the main actor against the overall conflict against the growth of civilization and its implications against those who value the older-style western life.
Another thing I had a slight disagreement with was a small note near the end where you stated "Unless the author states..." that x character is x role, it's up to the audience interpretation. I would say that it is still primarily up to the audience, death of the author and all that. If Fitzgerald came back from the dead and said The Great Gatsby's main character is Myrtle, actually, very few people would agree.
We watched "Ivanhoe" (Anthony Andrews 1980's version) the other night and I was thinking of this video. While he was for sure the hero, he was decidedly NOT the protagonist, as he spends most of his time injured and even when he's not, everyone else making decisions about what he's to do. I don't even think he was the main character. Amusingly, he's more of a 'damsel in distress' with everyone else coming to his rescue until the very end.
There doesn't seem to be one single character making all the decisions and most of the POV's are about how they feel and think about Ivanhoe, except the antagonists who are focused on stealing the 2 women who love him. I would love to know your take on who the Main Character or protagonist is.
I guess it is possible that Ivanhoe represents Honor and the rest of the characters must act honorably in order to save him. So the main character and protagonist is the concept of Honor?
Great video.
I’d submit another example of a story that has the roles split: Harry Potter
A potentially controversial pick for some, perhaps, but I’d argue that Dumbledore is the true Protagonist while Harry is the Hero & Main Character. Dumbledore’s driving of the plot that impacts Harry, from book 1 to book 7
Thank you for watching and your comment. I actually love when people give a little more controversial take, as opposed to the safe one!
Shia LaBeouf doesnt feel like the protagonist of the first Transformers movie. He is just along for the ride and is an avatar for the audience
Ha, that is a really good example!
Well, this video DID leave out Point of View characters. Much like the three terms referenced in the video, POV characters are often the same as the hero, protagonist, and main character. But sometimes, the Point of View character is someone separate altogether.
Sometimes, but not always! Thanks for the common thought, I appreciate you.
I have tried to write more in a way that is not outlined based. And I have noticed that this is better for me. That makes me more insecure in who is protagonist and who is hero and main character. I also have two point of views (two brothers separated at the inciting incident) how do I know who is driving the plot forward?
Thank you for all of your videos, they have helped me a lot!
/Tom
Thank you for the question and the comment!
In your case, it might be a factor that there are two protagonists with two parallel plots going on. This happened in The Witcher (TV show, Season 1). It is sometimes hard to nail down who is the protag without more information, but there are also so many different routes you can go.
Are the brothers trying to return to one another? If so, then maybe one is playing a more active role in that while the other has given up.
Can one brother become the antagonist and the other the protagonist? Is one brother trying to stop the other from reaching or obtaining some goal?
Have they given up on reuniting and are just living separate lives trying to reach separate goals? If so, then you might have two parallel plots and protags.
A big thing to look at would be the goals of the characters and the goal of the narrative. Who is trying to reach that goal? Are they actively taking steps to reach that? If yes to all of those, then they are probably the protagonist! Thank you again for the comment. I am glad my videos are helpful!
I find them really helpful, but don't think of these terms while writing but only ever use them for analytical purposes.
True! Normally I use them as a way to plot and plan, or I'll use them as a way to analyze why a character(s) is or isn't working. Thank you for watching!
This is very helpful
Thank you for watching!
RE: Akira.....are you sure you didn't mean Tetsuo? You keep showing Tetsuo but referring to him as Akira
I might have been using the wrong clips. Thank you for pointing that out.
Ara-who...
I understand what you’re trying to say, but saying that Sam Gsmgee isn’t a main protagonist/main character? Well it’s just not true. He moves the plot along more often than Frodo in some cases.
Sicario
A great example!