Why does the protagonist have to be weak?

[Don]

I think it must be an unwritten rule of any kind of story that if you have any kind of fighting involved, the guys you're writing about has to be weaker than the guys they're fighting. Even when your main character is supposed to be some kind of totally awesome guy, like say Kenshin, inexplicably every guy you fight against is even more awesomer than the guy who was supposed to have beaten everyone in Japan.

Problem is that overcoming insurmountable odds is only interesting the first 1000 times or so. After a while it seems like insurmountable odds is just a way of saying 'no problem'. It's something akin to the Stormtrooper Effect where the chance of success for any given task is directly proportional to how impossible it is (e.g. dodging laser fire from a legion of Stormtroopers is no problem at all, but 1 of them alone could actually hit you). Killua in HXH says you're not supposed to go into a fight with 1% chance of winning and expect to win, which I always thought is Togashi's take on the nonsensical nature of the weak versus powerful stories.

Would having a story about a powerful character/organization/etc be bad? TIE Fighter covers the Empire, and it's hard to get more powerful than that. It does a good job of telling a story about how even with the Dark Side of the Force and whatever % of the galaxy behind you, some people still try to mess things up when the Emperor isn't looking. But, it also doesn't get into a situation where you're always wondering why your side is so useless despite its alleged powers. Darth Vader still force chokes random guys during cutscenes, and indeed the escort Darth Vader mission is actually unfailable in terms of mission objective unless you die (you lose if Vader dies, except he's invinicible).

Would a Star Trek about Borg work? I mean they're pretty close to the most powerful beings in the series, but obviously they still get setback by something. I suppose such a story would have to be highly political in nature. The balancing factor in TIE Fighter is pretty much politics since obviously nobody can actually try to fight Darth Vader or the Emperor. Maybe your big and powerful organization of doom isn't as powerful as it looks like, though you should still be able to deliver some needed beatdown when it's needed.

A story that features the bad guys as the underdog could be good if well done. I think Luc in Suikoden 3 fits this, except he seems to just have so many failures it makes you wonder why he didn't just quit when he was behind.

[Julius Seeker]

It's a pop-literature trend. Same with flawed characters. These sorts of trends showed up more and more when literature began to become popular among the commoners.

[SineSwiper]

Well, I guess FF6 did this with Kefka, but he was such a horribly done villian. In any case, all Final Fantasy games involve fighting a god, so even if the villian is going to be weak at first, he's going to be a god in the end, and then you have to fight a god. Which is the exact opposite of what you're talking about, and pretty much cliched to death.

The Jason Bourne series seemed to pull off what you are talking about well. Sure, it's one man versus an organization, but you are totally confident that he's going to kick ass or kill whoever he needs to. If Jason was going to face an army of tanks armed with nuclear warheads, you were totally confident that this guy could just walk through a nuclear explosion and not die. It's the Chuck Norris joke in movie form.

Jedis are somewhat like this, too, but this is why they have jedis as opponents. If it was just good Jedis, there wouldn't be enough tension.

[RentCavalier]

The thing is, it's DULL if the main character is super powerful. There's no tension. Everyone likes an underdog--it's just preferable.

Personally, it's not so much "power" that interests me. I vastly prefer a main character who fights SMART. I mean, Naruto used to be about cleverly combining tactics and skills to outwit an enemy--that is, before it got all DBZ with Ninjas.

I write books, and in my books I try to have my main character fight against clearly powerful foes. I design a character, his abilities and whatnot, and then I figure out just how the main character could beat him. Generally, it's a combination of blind luck or quick-thinking--my protagonist(s) are almost never evenly matched for a drag out brawl. I find that more interesting, and it gives the fight a degree of uncertainty for the reader--I mean, after all, you know, deep down, that the hero is going to win/not die. So, you have to spice that up somehow.

[Flip]

I mean, after all, you know, deep down, that the hero is going to win/not die. So, you have to spice that up somehow.

Have him die. Who cares, why not do something interesting with your books?

[RentCavalier]

I mean, after all, you know, deep down, that the hero is going to win/not die. So, you have to spice that up somehow.

Have him die. Who cares, why not do something interesting with your books?

I've done that for one book, but, in all honesty, I don't think it's any more interesting to arbitrarilly kill a main character either. If it's important to the story that he dies, I'll kill him, but oftentimes, it's more satisfying to have him live through terrible ordeals in order to play with just what effect they can have on his every day life.

[Don]

I'd argue a weak main character is even less likely to die against overwhelming odds compared to an overwhelmingly powerful main character against guys that have no chance of beating him. Stormtroopers have managed to kill Jedi Masters, but are generally totally ineffective against people who are much weaker than Jedi Masters.

Maybe you don't want a guy who's just like hey look I'm so powerful I beat everybody, but then this is what ends up happening anyway even when you start with a weak character. A weak character who has never lost a fight is not a weak character. You can't make a convincing argument of how some guy who manages to slay gods and is still just a weak guy.

Did anyone ever think any of the Megamans are going to die? They sure are supposed to be pretty weak relative to who they fight. X didn't die until he become a legend. I'd say a power is what gives credibilty to a character's mortality.

[Don]

Speaking of Naruto, I don't consider the 'whoa everything was an illusion/clone after all' to be smart fighting. Naruto does have some of this politics element I talked about, though. The Akatsuki aren't supposed to be that powerful, but rather just some annoying mercernary organization that nobody wants to deal with because the 5 big nations have a strained relationship and nobody wants to spend the manpower to deal with Akatsuki. Obviously that's a little bit hard to believe when Akatsuki just randomly declares war on many of the nations and attempt to assassinate its leaders, but it could've worked if the author was more capable.

[Tessian]

I mean, after all, you know, deep down, that the hero is going to win/not die. So, you have to spice that up somehow.

Have him die. Who cares, why not do something interesting with your books?

I LOVE these kinds of stories-- one where no character is sacred; nobody is immortal, anything can happen. In most stories you know the main character will never die... but any one that can throw you that twist to let you know that rule doesn't apply here is just awesome. Throwing that uncertainty into the mix is a big deal in my book. Speaking of books, a series that did this incredibly well was the Star Wars: The New Jedi Order series. It's a long series, but you find out quickly that no main character is too important to die.

But to answer Don's original question, I think the whole "root for the underdog" thing that was mentioned earlier is the main reason.

[Don]

When you say the New Jedi Order is that the Vuuzhan Vong thing? It seems like anybody that can plausibly die died at some point in there.

I understand people like to root for the underdog but don't you think that if you know your main character isn't going to ever die, then he's not really that much of an underdog? For example you can figure everyone in Naruto that's under the age of 18 utterly cannot die. So in some sense it really sucks for whoever is fighting them. If Pain tried to kill Sakura, there's something like a 99.99999999% Sakura is going to live and most likely kill/maim Pain in the process, just because of how the series is set up. In this case I'd say even with all his allegedly invinicible powers, Pain is the underdog, not Sakura.

[Julius Seeker]

Main characters dying is not rare, it happens all the time in Hollywood films; just look at the Oscar list. Also in horror and fantasy it seems to happen in most books/movies as well. Not to mention the whole tragedy genre; like the plays of Shakespeare.

[Don]

I don't necessarily think you have to have people die to get a story going, but it should at least be plausible that the main character can die.

[Zeus]

If the main character isn't trying to overcome something what do they do?

[Don]

I didn't say they can't be fighting stuff more powerful than they are but sometimes it seems like the main character's qualification is so weak, it makes you wonder why they picked this loser to do whatever he's supposed to do.

Even in DBZ, Goku's probably the most qualified guy in the universe to fight these super beings. It's not like they're entrusting the future of universe to Mr. Satan (Hercules). And for the most part he's not that badly outmatched against the stuff he's fighting, which is what you'd hope when the fate of the universe depends on that guy.

[RentCavalier]

Yeah, but Goku suffers from being incapable of STAYING DEAD.

[Zeus]

Well, there's also the whole lazy factor. There's 32 basic plots but only 5 or 6 get used regularly. Then even with those there's the formulaic shit that I always complain about. And if you're talkin' anime, it's even worse. It's ALWAYS the same basic plot and slight variations on the extended plots on most shows with some exceptions (like Death Note).

[SineSwiper]

Not to mention the whole tragedy genre; like the plays of Shakespeare.

Heh, the entire tragic half of Shakespeare's plays end that way. That's pretty much how he defines the genre.

[Don]

I'm not talking about just Anime or games. I don't have time to read much anymore but the vast majority of anything that involves a kind of conflict on a personal level generally has protagonists that are woefully inadequate for the task fighting against insurmountable odds. It can be a good book or it could be your pirated martial arts fiction, this theme is fairly ingrained in the world of storytelling. I think the back of Breath of Fire 3 says something like "An Unlikely Hero blah blah blah". Well if this is the guy nobody expected to be a hero, there better a good reason why some loser is the hope of all humanity.

This applies to even something like Harry Potter. Given the way he's treated like some kid in wizardling school you can see the assumption is that he is weak by association of being the protagonist, except he is able to defeat Valdemort who apparently the rest of the wizard world put together can't beat. Now I realized there's some politics behind the scenes, but if someone can beat a guy that you can't beat with an army, you'd think you ought to pay respect to him. He is a perfect example of weak by assumption of being a hero: Harry Potter is the hero of the story, so he has to be weak (otherwise it wouldn't be fair), and as a corollary he gets no respect.

It's kind of like how Megaman X became a living legend the moment he stopped being the main character, but he will continue to save the world for minimum wage and no respect as long as the X series continues. If I was a Maverick I would be running for my life against a guy who saved the world 8+ times, not laugh at him! I imagine X is always supposed to be a living legend, but as long as he is the hero you are not allowed such things, which leads to some really awkward storytelling. Maybe even 8 time world saving veterans can find new challenging tasks, but he shouldn't have to listen to smack talk from obligatory boss #1-8.

[Don]

Not to mention the whole tragedy genre; like the plays of Shakespeare.

Heh, the entire tragic half of Shakespeare's plays end that way. That's pretty much how he defines the genre.

I believe the original definition of tragedy is 'something where the main character dies' and comedy is 'something where the main character does not die'.

[Flip]

I mean, after all, you know, deep down, that the hero is going to win/not die. So, you have to spice that up somehow.

Have him die. Who cares, why not do something interesting with your books?

I LOVE these kinds of stories-- one where no character is sacred; nobody is immortal, anything can happen. In most stories you know the main character will never die... but any one that can throw you that twist to let you know that rule doesn't apply here is just awesome. Throwing that uncertainty into the mix is a big deal in my book. Speaking of books, a series that did this incredibly well was the Star Wars: The New Jedi Order series. It's a long series, but you find out quickly that no main character is too important to die.

But to answer Don's original question, I think the whole "root for the underdog" thing that was mentioned earlier is the main reason.

I agree. I think its very easy to spot an author who is in love with his own character. After 20 pages of that, you know nothing supremely terrible will ever happen to him and while it may still be a good book, its still missing that element of 'anything goes' (not the musical).

Not to critique too much, but the weak ugly smart main character... while identifiable, isnt what weak ugly smart nerds want to read about, IMO. In HS when i was all about M:TG and RPGs, fantasy books with studs who got chicks were the best. I.e. Sword of Truth/Wheel of Time.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

Read Gene Wolfe. In a bunch of his books he stacks the deck heavily in favour of his protagonists, and then examines how that deck-stacking affects their morality.

[Flip]

Read Gene Wolfe. In a bunch of his books he stacks the deck heavily in favour of his protagonists, and then examines how that deck-stacking affects their morality.

That sounds pretty cool, sometimes it isnt the story itself but the concepts behind the story. Not counting SoT, I havent read an 'everyman takes on the world' fantasy novel in a while and dont really want to. Maybe video games will finally do something different with RPGs for crying out loud.

[Don]

Have him die. Who cares, why not do something interesting with your books?

I LOVE these kinds of stories-- one where no character is sacred; nobody is immortal, anything can happen. In most stories you know the main character will never die... but any one that can throw you that twist to let you know that rule doesn't apply here is just awesome. Throwing that uncertainty into the mix is a big deal in my book. Speaking of books, a series that did this incredibly well was the Star Wars: The New Jedi Order series. It's a long series, but you find out quickly that no main character is too important to die.

But to answer Don's original question, I think the whole "root for the underdog" thing that was mentioned earlier is the main reason.

I agree. I think its very easy to spot an author who is in love with his own character. After 20 pages of that, you know nothing supremely terrible will ever happen to him and while it may still be a good book, its still missing that element of 'anything goes' (not the musical).

Not to critique too much, but the weak ugly smart main character... while identifiable, isnt what weak ugly smart nerds want to read about, IMO. In HS when i was all about M:TG and RPGs, fantasy books with studs who got chicks were the best. I.e. Sword of Truth/Wheel of Time.

Jin Yong might be the closest guy to a Tolkien equivalent in recent Chinese culture and the worst received books he wrote always involve some guy dorkier than Harry Potter end up with 5 girls. It's kind of funny because in the books themselves his enemies would speculate that the hero uses black magic to enslave these girls, and that's actually the only plausible explanation (although not the intended explanation, of course).