This is Story Fanatic, a collection of articles covering story structure and analysis for
creative writers. Published weekly.
When the Main Character of a story also happens to be the one driving the story forward (Protagonist), he or she is considered the Hero of the story. Many story theorists/gurus collapse the concept of MC, Protagonist and Hero all into one. While this works for most stories (particularly Western film), it tends to ignore those stories where the Main Character is “along for the ride.” Separating these concepts allows for greater accuracy in analyzing and developing a story.
From the tragic to the very noble, the concept of the hero has grown to such epic proportions that it now borders on the precipice of the meaningless. When it becomes necessary to qualify an aspect of story structure, there should be questions asked as to the veracity of such an understanding. The way forward consists of concrete definitions that require no modification, no mental twisting in order to make right. Clearly defining what makes up a Hero becomes the first step.
In film schools across the country and in screenwriting books dating back to the previous century, the apparent inequity between what a hero wants and what he truly needs is held is held up as the standard for establishing a character’s motivation. The problem for the creative writer occurs when they actually try to put this concept into practice. How can an appreciation of a story’s meaning, one made after the fact by an Audience, become a useful tool for the working writer?
What of stories that feature heroes who don’t learn something? The argument might be made that such a situation foretells a story with faulty construction. Authors need not fear if they are on the path to creating such a story as the purpose of narrative fiction is not always to teach the hero some new life understanding. Sometimes (actually all the time) it is simply using the central character’s approach as a means of arguing some greater meaning.
Dividing up lead characters into the two categories of Learning and Teaching can be a useful exercise after the act of creating a story, but becomes less helpful in the development cycle of a piece of narrative fiction. Instead, it becomes more beneficial to think in terms of the central character’s final resolve: do they change their way of doing things, or do they dig in their heels and forge on the way they always have?
No matter how hard one tries, it is damn near impossible to avoid contact with the Hero’s Journey paradigm within the context of story structure. This nearly omniscient presence of the monomyth serves only to further muddle the conversation and mislead potential writers from their true selves. Structure exists to carry the message, not inform it.
Trust me, there is a difference between the two.