Does my protagonist need to be the most important character?
In my fantasy story that I'm slowly getting into, my MC Sirena is an apprentice witch. Her two fellow apprentices, Aster and Keeva, study alongside her under their High Priestess, and they all somewhat cooperate with the king of the lands where they live.
Sirena is not the most powerful of the three. In fact, for most of the story, the expectation is that Keeva is the most powerful--she's aggressive, ambitious, courageous, and headstrong. But in the end, neither Sirena nor Keeva saves the day. Aster shows herself to be the most powerful (the "chosen one" if you will), despite her alternative, non-violent approach (healing and clairvoyance).
What I'm asking is, since Aster is the hero in the end, is it okay that I'm not focusing on her? Is it okay that I follow the journey of Sirena, even though she is not the most important of the three in the context of the whole? Should I switch to have my protagonist be Aster, or switch Aster and Sirena's roles? Does my main character need to be the one who saves the day?
IN GENERAL for the modern novel, the MC is the one with a problem to solve, the MC has to take the risks, and the MC has …
5y ago
This is perfectly fine as long as your protagonist's character arc is satisfying and complete. If someone else is steali …
5y ago
Here's an example from television, which while not in print media, is nonetheless a story: On an old episode of Babylon …
5y ago
It can work sometimes, especially if your main character is a pinball protagonist who is simply caught up in events happ …
5y ago
Indiana Jones was the obvious protagonist and main character in Raiders of the Lost Ark. But as to being "the most impo …
5y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/48430. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
5 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
IN GENERAL for the modern novel, the MC is the one with a problem to solve, the MC has to take the risks, and the MC has to solve the problem.
One exception to this rule I can think of is Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes series, he is the "MC" that tells the story. Most analysts believe Doyle did this specifically to hide the thoughts and feelings of Sherlock, maintain some distance, so the reader is not privy to all the nitty-gritty details of the investigation and what Sherlock thought about them. That would pretty much ruin the mystery and the climactic reveal.
But Dr. Watson is pretty much glued to Sherlock throughout the story, in a way he "vanishes" for the reader (like most narrators do) and this is the equivalent of 3rd person objective narrator (a 3PO doesn't know what any character is thinking or feeling; they describe only what can be sensed by a person at the scene; sights, sounds, heat, cold, etc). (But not exactly, because Watson is needed for Sherlock to "explain" things in conversation, a way to drop clues for the reader that a 3PO narrator doesn't have; though they could describe notes, diary entries, and self-talk of Sherlock).
For your story, one way to keep your plot line is to follow Sirena throughout the story, go ahead and show Keeva and Aster as magically powerful, but make it so Sirena is the one that finally figures out the puzzle, and directs Aster in saving the day, or convinces her.
That way your MC is still the hero, the one that figured it out. It doesn't have to be her own magic that did the trick, her true skill can be understanding.
Failing that, I'd say switch their roles; your MC should be the central figure in the plot that brings about the resolution of the plot.
0 comment threads
This is perfectly fine as long as your protagonist's character arc is satisfying and complete. If someone else is stealing the show at the end, there may be good reason for that, and lessons to learn for everybody.
If your characters are part of one team (even a dysfunctional one), your task is even easier. The reader would be rooting for the team success, and the fact who scored the final blow is not that much important - actually, dedication is more important in this case.
In "The Lord of the Rings" climactic moment, Frodo was (very unexpectedly) overshadowed by Gollum. Does this make Frodo weak, and Gollum - the real hero?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48431. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
0 comment threads
Here's an example from television, which while not in print media, is nonetheless a story:
On an old episode of Babylon 5, a fleet from really far away invades. The Babylon 5 crew must scramble fighters and fight them off, but that just becomes a backdrop for two maintenance men to run around and show us what THEIR working life is like. While clearly not the most important people on the space station, the story IS all about them.
Having said that, doesn't making the story about someone(s) automatically make them the most important, just for that story? I'm getting semantical here.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48488. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
0 comment threads
Indiana Jones was the obvious protagonist and main character in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
But as to being "the most important character", if that quality is measured by contribution to the plot, it definitely wasn't Jones.
The Indiana Jones character could have been trimmed back to a few scenes at the beginning (an expert providing background information), or even completely dropped from the story, and just about everything that happened would still have happened.
Jones was an observer, not a participant. He provided a point of view for the telling of the story, his presence tied the various parts together, but, in terms of actual plot, he contributed almost nothing and almost certainly didn't "save the day".
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48436. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
0 comment threads
It can work sometimes, especially if your main character is a pinball protagonist who is simply caught up in events happening around them or to them. For instance Arthur Dent is very clearly the main character of Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but for a large portion of the book series he instigates almost nothing and does almost nothing on his own.
However whether it's advisable to structure a story like this is another matter. In HHGttG it works because Arthur is the surrogate for the everyman reader who would be equally out of their depth in the universe suddenly turned upside down. But in case like yours where each character, at least in theory, should be equally equipped to handle the situations it can raise the question "why are we watching this character instead of the hero?" You need to have a very good reason that you can justify when you pick an unorthodox main character when the orthodox one would be a perfectly good choice.
Why do you want to follow not-the-hero in this story?
0 comment threads
0 comment threads