Rename and clean-up? (Crowner swapped Aug.25): Supporting Protagonist

Well, reading the trope's description, it sounds closer to "viewpoint character is not The Hero" than "protagonist is not the hero". Exist, however, examples to both- AND examples implying The Hero is the Supporting Protagonist because he is NOT The Protagonist(ie-the story not revolves around him).

After reading the description and the examples, my interpretation of the trope is: There is a clearHero in the story. There is also a clear Main Character in the story. These characters are not the same.

I don't think viewpoint (except that it's often an indication of main-characterness) is part of this trope. That's The Ishmael, which often accompanies, but is separate from this trope.

A lot of the examples seem to be confusing it with The Ishmael or just with protagonists who are more along the lines of Those Two Guys (but the examples make no mention of a hero character being present).

A good example would be the series Spiderman Loves Mary Jane. The whole point of the work is that Spider-man is the hero, but the story is that of his love interest.

And someone should take the picture up with Image Pickin' because it's not doing anything.

edited 13th Jul '11 7:07:50 AM by StarryEyed

"I don't think viewpoint (except that it's often an indication of main-characterness) is part of this trope. That's The Ishmael"

No, the viewpoint is the main part of this trope. And that other trope has other factors that separate this.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

If this is true, a rename probably is a good idea.

Why?

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Well, usually the protagonist is the viewpoint character. The exception to this is The Ishmael. I don't see the issue here.

edited 13th Jul '11 1:11:52 PM by shiro_okami

The Ishmael is a subtrope of this if they are different tropes. Both these tropes are about some character narrating (or modern third-person limited equivalent) who is not the character we're supposed to consider the lead.

The Ishmael specifies that the narrator is unimportant in the greater scheme of things (the most important thing Ishmael does in Moby Dick is survive), but this is not essential. Think of Watson in classic original Sherlock Holmes stories: he is a Supporting Protagonist created because audiences of the era were not expected to empathize directly with Holmes, but the original Watson is still an active force in many of these stories...

Supporting Protagonist covers both The Ishmael and a narrating lesser Duagonist.

It is possible that Supporting Protagonist is redundant. But it is certain that The Ishmael is a character-named trope, even if there is only one character associated with that name. (The original Ishmael is in the Bible, but we don't see that much of him there.) So recommend we keep this, one way or another.

There is a fine line between recklessness and courage — Paul McCartney

So...the story of Alexander The Great told from the POV of a footsoldier in his army would be The Ishmael, but told from the POV of one of his generals—who is a major player, but not the major player—would be Supporting Protagonist?

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I would say so.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Okay, I think the problem might be that we have actually three types of characters being muddily spread over two pages.

Type I: The Observer A specific type of narrator, The Observer basically exists to observe the characters and plot and comment on them. They affect the action of the plot in only a few, mostly superficial ways. Examples:

• Ishmael from Moby Dick
• Nick Carraway from The Great Gatsby
• Mr. Lockwood from Wuthering Heights

Type II: Sidekick Protagonist A side character, often a sidekick, love interest, or close friend of the main character that is the narrator. While the story is unquestionably focused on a different character, the Sidekick Protagonist does affect the plot in a number of ways. Much more likely than The Observer to be an Unreliable Narrator (since the whole point of The Observer is to get an objective view of things). A common convention in detective fiction, often overlapping with The Watson. Examples:

• Watson from Sherlock Holmes
• Ellen Dean from Wuthering Heights
• Captain Hastings in the early Hercule Poirot novels, then a different Sidekick Protagonist each novel
• Scout Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird
• Brinnie from the Vesper Holly series by Lloyd Alexander

Type III: Protagonist Sidekick This is when the story revolves around the "minor" character. In a story about a great knight and his young squire, the squire, not the knight, is the main character. In a story about a powerful queen and her beloved lap dog, the lap dog is the main character. This isn't "the great queen through the eyes of her dog" it's "a dog who happens to belong to a great queen" The character who would normally be the protagonist is now a side character and the side character is the protagonist. Technically, this doesn't mean the story has to be from their viewpoint—they could have their own Observer, for instance, but it almost always is. Basically, a Lower-Deck Episode or Day in the Limelight for an entire work. Commonly found in fanfiction. Examples:

• Mary Jane from Spiderman Loves Mary Jane
• One of the main gimmicks in The Squires Tales. Three books are about Sir Gawain's squire, Terrence, one is about Parsifal's page, and several are about the various damsels of different Arthurian tales.
• Jimmy Olsen in Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen
• Lois Lane in Superman's Girlfriend, Lois Lane
• From the sound of the example on the Supporting Protagonist page, Son Gohan in Dragon Ball Z

I think The Ishmael lines up pretty well with Type I(but a few of the examples on the page may need cleaning up), and Supporting Protagonist should be Type II, but the description sounds like Type III in places and it's not clear on it's relationship to Type I. Type III, on further inspection, is not actually covered by either existing trope, but may be getting shoehorned into Supporting Protagonist.

edited 13th Jul '11 2:29:51 PM by StarryEyed

What do you mean "should"? It's a Super-Trope for all of them.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Actually, I think it's more like Type I is The Ishmael, Type III is the Supporting Protagonist, and Type II is halfway between the two tropes. I think it also depends on whether you define "protagonist" as just referring to the main character or any really important character(s).

edited 13th Jul '11 3:09:11 PM by shiro_okami

No. ALL types fall under this. This is NOT about the role this character plays other than it's not the hero of the story.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

By "should" I meant "I think that's what it's intended to be" or at least that's the closest to a singular concept I can get out of it.

Supporting Protagonist may call itself a supertrope to The Ishmael, but it seems like it might make a better sister trope. And Supporting Protagonist would not be a Super-Trope to what I'm calling Type III. A Supporting Protagonist is a viewpoint character for someone else's story. In Type III, it is the sidekick's story, but we see the person who's story it would conventionally be in the background.

To use the Alexander The Great example: Type I: The story of Alexander The Great told from a footsoldier in the army Type II: The story of Alexander The Great told from a general who is a major player in what happens in Alexander the Great's life/campaigns Type III: The story of a footsoldier in Alexander the Great's army

edited 13th Jul '11 3:14:39 PM by StarryEyed

Actually, Type III would be more like a story about a general of Alexander the Great. A common footsoldier would probably have too little interaction with Alexander for him to be considered The Hero of the story.

Actually, I'm not sure Type II exists, or at least rather poor examples were provided for it. The characters listed from Sherlock Holmes, Wuthering Heights, and Hercule Poirot are not protagonists at all, and Scout is actually a Type III, as To Kill A Mockingbird is HER story, not her father's, who is The Hero of it.

edited 13th Jul '11 3:36:24 PM by shiro_okami

I think what's been described as "Protagonist Sidekick" (type III) above sounds a bit too much like "the story of someone who is associated with characters who could be protagonists or heroes of another story, but aren't the heroes of this one." Which is simply a story. At best, it's A Day in the Limelight (or close cousin).

Back on topic, I think The Ishmael does seem like a subtrope of Supporting Protagonist, but subtrope vs. sister trope seems like a minor quibble. I'm satisfied that they're distinguishable and both valid tropes. I think the descriptions of one or both could use some cleanup, though.

edited 13th Jul '11 3:25:14 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Actually...remember i said exist cases where The Hero was put as example simply because the story actually revolves around other character? Well, exist at least three examples of the type in the anime folder- and other examples in other folders.

I think part of the problem is that different pages don't always use terminology consistently. In any case, the situation may even be more complicated than it appears. There are four independently assigned traits that can come into play:

• From whose viewpoint do we see the events? The Viewpoint Character
• Who does the story (not necessarily the events, mind) revolve around? The Protagonist
• Who is the center of attention? The Focal Character
• Who is driving the plot forward? Usually The Hero, at least if this character is morally good, which is obviously not always the case

There may, of course, be more than one of each, and a given character may fit multiple roles. Also, the Focal Character is usually (but not always) The Protagonist, who is also usually (but not always) one of the Viewpoint Characters and the Hero as well. What we are concerned with when considering Supporting Protagonist and related tropes is when no one character fills all four roles. Before I examine the tropes in question, an example:

Alice, maid to Bob Smith, tells the story of Bob's son Charlie returning to the family estate after one of Bob's house guests disappears under mysterious circumstances. As Dave, the police inspector, starts finding evidence that it may be a murder case, Bob starts acting more and more eccentric, and Charlie has to examine his strained relationship with his father and accept that his father may be a murderer.

• Alice is the Viewpoint Character (and possibly the Narrator), but has no major part to play in the events nor an established emotional investment (though the story could easily be tweaked to change either of these details, thereby increasing her role).
• Charlie is The Protagonist. The story revolves around his reaction to the events, and he is (ideally) the character to whom the audience is emotionally connected.
• Bob is the Focal Character. While the audience is invested in Charlie's emotional reaction, it is Bob's characterization and actions that are called into focus.
• Dave is The Hero and the one driving the plot forward. As he's the one actually solving the missing person case, it is he who will reveal the evidence that calls everyone's interpretation of Bob into question (likely multiple times, seemingly both implicating and exonerating Bob at different points), and it is also he who will bring resolution to the external conflict.

A full and equal split like this is obviously unusual, but there are many cases of roles being split in a less complete manner (Moby Dick, pretty much every version of Sherlock Holmes, etc.)

The Ishmael is a not particularly compelling Viewpoint Character and Protagonist when someone else is the Focal Character. Supporting Protagonist is somewhat ambiguously defined as a Viewpoint Character and Protagonist who does not drive the story.*

Note that while the Focal Character often drives the plot forward (particularly if the protagonist is bland, as in the case of Moby Dick), this is not necessarily the case, and thus the two tropes are Sister Tropes, with no Subtrope/Supertrope relationship.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

I thought that The Ishmael (both the trope and the original in Moby Dick) was not a protagonist at all. Wasn't Captain Ahab The Protagonist?

edited 13th Jul '11 6:55:32 PM by shiro_okami

Really, Captain Ahab is The Protagonist in Moby Dick. The story not revolves around Ishmael; he is only the narrator and the last survivor of the ship. And The Ishmael trope description implies the viewpoint character is not The Protagonist; "The author has a fascinating character in mind - it is unquestionably his story - but for one reason or another, getting into their head just wouldn't pan out for the reader;" " The Ishmael doesn't have to be pointless, stupid, Genre Blind or a form of exposition necessarily, just not the real main character."

edited 13th Jul '11 8:40:48 PM by MagBas

The Ishmael has to be something besides "just not the main character" otherwise there's nothing distinguishing it from Supporting Protagonist.

After some consideration, I disagree about your last two categories (which is good, because this is complicated enough as it stands). If the character who drives the plot isn't the protagonist or the focal character, then I think he's just scenery. Even if he's played as the hero.

More after I have a little more time to think.

edit: p.s. in your example, I'd think Dave would be the focal character, and Bob would be scenery. Or at least, that's how I'd expect to see it written, though it could be done the other way around.

edited 13th Jul '11 9:30:27 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Well, now that the description of The Ishmael was changed (matching it up more with what I expected it to be) . . .

@Xtifr: As you noted, if the person driving the plot forward isn't the Focal Character or the Protagonist, they are just a plot device. That's exactly what Dave is in the example: he just exists to reveal the next clues to the other characters and to the audience. Since Alice is the one telling the story, we don't get to see much of what he's doing when he's not confronting the other characters with what he's uncovered (or lying about uncovering). She only sees what Bob and Charlie are up to. The focus of the story is on what the hell is up with Bob, while Dave just shows up every so often to say things that force the audience (and Charlie) to reevaluate their assumptions about the situation.

There are of course a possible versions where Dave is the focal character, but then either the focus lies in the mystery itself, how the investigation is affecting him, or perhaps his motives for getting involved or conducting the investigation in an unorthodox fashion, all of which would almost certainly involve Alice giving up narration and Charlie give his role as protagonist to Dave. Of course, if the story were taken in an entirely different direction to focus on the opposition between Alice/Charlie/Bob and Dave, the events could be left the same, but their depiction (and the roles the characters fill) would shuffle yet again.

In any case, the selections I chose would be an unusual way of telling the story, but that's the sort of thing you get when all four key roles are split between four characters.*

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

I think we're making it too complicated. Let's just throw out the narrator and forget about The Ishmael for a second. We can return to it later, but let's focus on Supporting Protagonist for now.

I think we're getting confused by trying to separate the hero from the protagonist. The problem is, many stories don't have heroes. So...what term do we use instead? That's right! Protagonist! Oh, Crap!!

I think the term "focal character" is a key insight here (thanks, Ironeye), but I think it's the wrong term. I think the term "subject" makes it more clear. Basically, the subject would be the person the story is really about. As in "Alexander was the subject of the story, but his general was the protagonist." And that, I believe is a solid example of Supporting Protagonist.

In conclusion, I think Supporting Protagonist is a valid trope, but its description needs work.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

If the story is acually about a character different than the viewpoint character, this character is more "main" than the viewpoint character. And protagonist means main character.

edited 14th Jul '11 3:25:40 AM by MagBas