Are Inexperienced Protagonists More Interesting Than Experienced Ones?

[Cicada 5]

I was thinking about how a lot of super hero films are origin tales, showing how the hero acquired his abilities and realized that this applies to a number of fantasy/adventure stories. The argument I've heard for using this is that inexperienced characters are easier to write challenges for ast they're just starting out and more vulnerable.

So are inexperienced protagonists more interesting that experienced ones?

 

[Zhukov]

Debatable.

They certainly allow plenty of room for easy character development. Person has little power. Person gains power. Person overcomes challenge with new-found power. Boom. Character arc complete.

Protagonists who are already badasses or otherwise masters of their domain can be a little dull. "Here is the coolest person on earth. Can cool person become even more cool? Keep watching to find out!" This happens a lot in video games.

On the other hand, the origin story format is getting worn awfully thin and there's something to be said for being able to dive straight into the plot with established characters.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not inherently, but what you are describing seems like an origin story, which isn't a bad place to start.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

They can be, if it leads to an arc.

 

[happyninja42]

I think it depends on how they are written. Origin stories are very familiar to us as a culture, and we enjoy them. We like seeing stories of someone of humble origins, being given a mantle of power, and seeing them step up to become a defender or whatever. We like those stories a lot. But if that was the only kind of story that we liked, then every subsequent story would be less interesting.

For example, The Dark Knight movie compared to Batman Begins. I personally like Batman Begins more, but most people find The Dark Knight to be the superior story/movie.

Basically, I think any story can be interesting, no matter what the character is, depending on how it's written and executed.

 

[The Philistine]

Not sure one is inherently more interesting, they face different challenges in capturing the audience's attention.

Inexperienced newbie: Usually starts off as an bland everyman who dreams of something more. Super easy for the audience to project upon. Can quickly fall into the "it's destiny" trap where they become the foretold hero of legend, set out on the hero's journey, blah blah blah. Requires alot of buildup to establish that the once vanilla protagonist is now bad-ass enough to triumph over the bigbad without resorting to a deus ex placeholder.

Experienced badass: Either starts off in an action sequence to establish how badass they are, or in a retiring state to get pulled from into the action of a story. Balancing their level of badass without demolishing suspense is a fine line. Can go through an entire story with their defining characteristic being "badass", but risks only connecting with the audience on a superficial level as a consequence.

Both can wind up being formulaic and bland. The trick is how they make themselves stand out. I'd say the intended audience has more impact on choice of protagonist. Bright eye-ed innocents tend to be aimed at younger audiences, grizzled veterans at older.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

They're certainly used more than the Experienced ones. If it's an origin story, the hero kind of has to go through the slow discovery and evolution of their powers. If it's fantasy, the amateur protagonist is the best kind of 'audience character' to have (Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, Luke Skywalker...) because they get the most exposure. Every Tales game and most Final Fantasies do this too because they need a reason to explain some of the concepts unique to that world. Their power and confidence grow with the audience's. It's a proven formula.

Neither one is inherently better, but I'd consider Experienced harder to do in a compelling way. Maybe if they're experienced in the use of their powers, they can be inexperienced in other fields such as matters of the heart (see: lots of Animes), or perhaps something in the plot requires them to gain the allegiance of lots of civilians when they're not good at public speaking.

The most experienced major Protag I remember off the top of my head is Sherlock Holmes, but he has Watson to be the inexperienced one there, and their positions are reversed when it comes to socializing instead of solving crimes.

 

[K12]

You don't need the hero to go through a personal arc and that personal arc doesn't need to be gaining experience or establishing who he is. Experienced characters can change and grow just as much as inexperienced ones... the difference being the inexperienced characters basically have to do this whereas experienced characters ca

Talking about superheroes. Captain America didn't go through a personal arc in Winter Soldier, he's the exact same person at the end that he is at the begininng (i.e. buff boy scout with shield) but it didn't matter because the story was about what the established character reacted rather than how the situation changed the character.

I think hero origin films can feel a bit flat because they feel like prequels since we know how they're going to end up (because they are adaptations of well established characters already). Prequels are hard to do well because they have to work within a lot of constraints.

 

[Lucane]

Transformers, G.I. Joe, Robotech Dragonball (Z/GT) warrior/soldier fighter stories can have experienced people in the series from the start though sometimes they'll add a rookie later or have the main focus be on a new squad/team or an individual to be the (viewer's surrogate.) Like Jubilee was in a sense for X-men in the 80's cartoon.

I don't think it's "more interesting" to have inexperienced protagonists so much as it's more convenient from a narrative point of view to write stories that show them training, losing a fight once and winning against them later, bonding if apart of a team, finding allies and/or new gear tools and maybe even aging. If Pokemon started with Ash having a Raichu and arrested Team Rocket after they're first meeting the show wouldn't be able to airing for so long if they never had a challenge to overcome or they'd have to start having more Legendary stuff happen more often or have reasons to weaken them constantly.

Just look at One Punch Man it's interesting about an experienced hero"for fun" but it's a short series because it can't function as a long series.

Also Berserk and Claymore have powerful Protagonists but like I said they basically run into Gods of there worlds to be there hurdle to jump or being vastly outnumbered.

 

[jhoroz]

It's a balancing act, that's for sure. One of my favourite examples of shounen protagonists in anime/manga is Edward Elric, who is intelligent and competent enough to not be a completely useless loser in the beginning of the story (e.g. unlike Naruto) but also not a perfect human being with virtually no flaws, that render him into a complete power fantasy (e.g. Kirito from Sword Art Online). He is knowledgeable and talented, but is immature and bitter at his own failings that had severe repercussions on both him and his brother, both physically and mentally. He tries to act like an adult, but still has a lot of growing up to do despite all his talent and potential, and the series is him coming to terms with his failures and his tendency to over rely on himself and his skills, instead of also allowing trust in others to help him. His ultimate goal in his story isn't about becoming "the greatest there ever was" like a lot of other shounen and getting stronger and stronger, but about confronting his failures and taking back what him and his brother lost by learning from his mistakes.

 

[HybridChangeling]

It's not the experience, it is how they are portrayed. If you want to make a complete blank slate to learn and grow with the audience, sure. But you need to make him/her likable and unique of his own. You need to show he has some base skills at least to come into play later perhaps (think Luke's Skyhopper experience) and grow. This makes a very connectable character that becomes quickly iconic. How not to do it is explain him in a couple sentences and show it off, making him/her ignorant, not inexperienced.

Meanwhile an experienced character works the same way, but it is much trickier to pull off. Even if he/she is experienced he/she still has to learn something new to grow and not plateau in the story. Even Vader who kept a cool steady level of power grew emotionally in the end of Episode 6. James Bond learns how to figure out the mystery in front of him, so even the most experienced characters don't start at the same level they will be at the finale. This is storytelling 101, that with any level of knowledge, they must learn and grow almost the same way as an inexperienced character.

What I am trying to say is that there is a debatable level of importance to the past, depending on the story, as long as the character grows in the story itself.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It depends on the story being told. For dramatic stories, usually yes. Otherwise it's all in the air.

 

[CaitSeith]

Not really. But it's far easier to use an inexperienced protagonist in the Hero's Journey structure (one of the most used story structures) than with an experienced one. However you can make really interesting experienced protagonists. You can see some examples in Final Fantasy VI. I find Cyan and Celes pretty interesting, and they are seasoned warriors (the later starts as a General)

 

[Rosiv]

I have always liked the inexperienced protagonist, for they offer a nice parallel to how I the player character views the game. We both would be new to the environments shown to us, and it helps me literally sympathize with the character better.

As an example, I liked Vann ratsburn from Final fantasy 12 for he was totatly new to the entire world he existed in, and he reacted to a scene, I often assumed that's how I would have reacted.

 

[Ryallen]

That all depends on how each is presented. If you choose an inexperienced hero, you could go the route of the hero not knowing what to do, how to do it, and making mistakes along the way, which result in people's deaths or the hero doubting his/her abilities and leading to conflict.

An experienced hero would have to be a little different. You would have to emphasize his experience and established view of the world, and how it has hardened him/her, making them an outcast to his/her friends or family.

Frankly, these are just two of the possible scenarios one could to here, and the effectiveness of either depends on the writer. Their effectiveness as compelling characters is separate from what kind of character they are.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

It really depends on the scenario and the discretion of the author. Sometimes square one is a good place to start so that the audience can grow with the character. It's also good seeing scenarios where a capable and experienced character is thrown into a situation they're ill-equipped to deal with and adapt, as it makes the character flawed and relatable. Even further, you can make interesting stories about someone doing the shit they're good at, although that doesn't really lend itself to long-form narratives.

 

[Bad Jim]

The argument I've heard for using this is that inexperienced characters are easier to write challenges for as they're just starting out and more vulnerable.

There are plenty of situations that, say, a Delta Force squad might find challenging, and those situations are, if not more interesting, certainly cooler and sexier than the challenges a raw recruit might face.

The other argument I've heard is that it enables character development, but it's a very predictable form of character development. A character doesn't have to develop in any particular direction. Captain Walker in Spec Ops: The Line goes from a respectable Delta Force operative to a delusional mass murderer, and whether you like the game or not, it's still a lot more interesting and worthy of discussion than the average shooter, because most games don't do anything like that.

I think it's best to make the character suit the gameplay. Solid Snake is badass because would make no sense to deploy raw recruits on the sort of missions he gets. In an RPG, it makes sense for the player character to be inexperienced, because it matches the gameplay where you start with low stats and level them up over the game, getting more badass as you go.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

badass from the start please. Because I've had it up to here with god damn origin stories. An arc doesn't have to be tied with the abilities, that's the lazy way of writing a character