Is Vanilla Protagonist a trope or audience reaction?

A Vanilla Protagonist a main character who is intentionally made less interesting than the rest of the cast in order to make the other characters stand out in comparison, as well as make them more relatable.

Going by that definition, this does seem to be a Trope (albeit a subjective one): it's something the writers intentionally aim for in order to achieve a certain effect in the narrative, and its presence can be verified simply by viewing the work, unlike an Audience Reaction, which is only present in the audience and not in the work itself. The word "trope" is also used in the definition (although that by itself is not strong evidence as that word is misused all over the site).

However, it's also listed under the Audience Reactions index, with the definition "Audiences find the main character to not be as interesting as the rest of the cast." This seems to be incorrect, as that seems to be making it sound like a work having a Vanilla Protagonist is a bad thing. This definition was added to the page rather recently, on May 30th, so it's probably just one troper who didn't understand the definition.

I feel that Vanilla Protagonist should be moved from the Audience Reactions index to the YMMV index since it seems to be less about how the viewers feel about the character, and more about what the writers were trying to do with them.

It originally was an audience reaction, changes were made to make it more objective.

So if its definition was changed to make it a trope, it should be removed from Audience Reactions, right?

Do it posthaste.

Is it a trope? I am pretty sure it is an Audience Reaction. There was some discussion about making an objective trope but it was unclear how to differentiate it from other tropes, and the discussion died out. See this thread.

I believe the non-YMMV equivalent of Vanilla Protagonist is The Everyman. I suspect VP is YMMV because otherwise the line for when they're comparatively bland is subjective.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 23rd 2019 at 4:02:54 AM

Now that you bring it up, should Vanilla Protagonist and The Everyman be added to the Canonical List of Subtle Trope Distinctions? Because the names sound like synonyms, it's only the description that tells you which one is author-intended and which one is audience-perceived, and they are otherwise the same thing.

Edited by notriddle on Jun 23rd 2019 at 5:12:15 AM

The Everyman isn't necessarily supposed to be bland, just someone that the audience can relate to and project themselves onto.

Edit: I guess since it's an Audience Reaction, a Vanilla Protagonist just has to be a character the audience doesn't find interesting as the rest of the cast. So a complex character could be considered a Vanilla Protagonist, if they're surrounded by characters who are more interesting than them.

Edited by SharkToast on Jun 23rd 2019 at 5:54:14 AM

Vanilla Protagonist is when you have The Everyman as a protagonist. That's the distinction.

Vanilla Protagonist is YMMV primarily because it is seen as a pejorative and will be highly prone to misuse as an objective trope. The traits associated with a Vanilla Protagonist are fairly easy to identify, a main character who functions more as the Straight Man and/or The Stoic to a group of very outlandish and colorful supporting characters, the vanilla ice cream next to chocolate, strawberry or rocky road. The Everyman is not necessarily bland, but they are deliberately meant to be an average person in a normal world. They are not a top athlete, not a top student, not absurdly attractive, not particularly popular, not very wealthy, not successful romantically, etc. They can still be highly engaging as a character because we see things through their perspective, and often their commentary on and reactions to the absurdity around them makes them exceptional in the realm of the narrative, even if not the fictional world itself.

See, we do have a thing called "pejorative tropes" after all... (I don't think VP is a "pejorative trope" though)