Will it be accepted, if there is no ''Main Character" stereotype?












10















There is a character in every story. Special One. It becomes the center of the story. i.e. the Main character.



The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers, too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.



I'm wondering, will readers accept a story that has no special one?

How can the story evolve without them? Moreover, is it always necessary to have such a Main character for a story?










share|improve this question





























    10















    There is a character in every story. Special One. It becomes the center of the story. i.e. the Main character.



    The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers, too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.



    I'm wondering, will readers accept a story that has no special one?

    How can the story evolve without them? Moreover, is it always necessary to have such a Main character for a story?










    share|improve this question



























      10












      10








      10


      2






      There is a character in every story. Special One. It becomes the center of the story. i.e. the Main character.



      The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers, too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.



      I'm wondering, will readers accept a story that has no special one?

      How can the story evolve without them? Moreover, is it always necessary to have such a Main character for a story?










      share|improve this question
















      There is a character in every story. Special One. It becomes the center of the story. i.e. the Main character.



      The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers, too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.



      I'm wondering, will readers accept a story that has no special one?

      How can the story evolve without them? Moreover, is it always necessary to have such a Main character for a story?







      characters storyline protagonist






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago









      Secespitus

      6,55233274




      6,55233274










      asked 19 hours ago









      Prasad_JoshiPrasad_Joshi

      387315




      387315






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          20














          Adding to linksassin's good answer about having a cast of characters rather than a main, I want to point out what you said:




          The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.




          This is an incorrect assumption. It's true that the MC in a lot of genres (I'm thinking about Young-adult fiction and fantasy, mainly) is often special in a way or another, but it doesn't have to be the case. It changes depending on the genre.
          This kind of stereotypical Main Character, who wins his struggles because he's special, is completely unnecessary. Fiction is full of protagonist that, while they do have skills and perks, are not "special" nor covered by plot armor.



          The real difference between a main character and a secondary one is time; how much time the author spend to show his struggles, describing his emotions and his thoughs, how much time is taken to develop his arc and so on. The more you write about a character, the more the audience will know him/her, and the more they will care (hopefully).



          If you don't want one MC, the easiest thing is to have two. Balancing two (interesting) characters, giving each one the same depht and an equally strong story arc, is surely challenging, but it can lead to interesting results. Also, chances are that the readers that won't be able to "click" with one of your MCs will be able to relate with the other. A classic example of this is The Betrothed by A.Manzoni, where both Renzo and Lucia are equally developed main characters.



          If you want you can add even more characters and move towards a group cast of main characters. GoT is a good example, but there are many more in literature. Remember that a group cast tend to subtract emphasys from the struggles of a single person to underline the struggles of a group of people, of a political situation, of a nation and so on depeding on the book.





          share





















          • 3





            +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

            – DoctorPenguin
            14 hours ago






          • 3





            LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

            – Darrel Hoffman
            12 hours ago






          • 3





            @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

            – DoctorPenguin
            11 hours ago






          • 3





            @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

            – Peteris
            11 hours ago








          • 2





            Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

            – bruglesco
            7 hours ago



















          7














          I think you misunderstand the MC; the MC doesn't have to be extraordinary in any particular sense; and in most good stories the MC has weaknesses or flaws to overcome.



          The reason an MC is the main character is only because that is the character the reader most identifies with. That is the character whose thoughts and feelings and troubles are shown. They don't have to be special.



          Even when they are special, the stories tend to be about problems they can't necessarily solve with their special powers -- Superman's biggest problem (the traditional Superman) was that he is lovesick for Lois Lane, and can't be with her, and can't have a romantic relationship with her. All his super powers can't fix that problem. (In more modern tellings, Superman may hook up with Lois, but again it can't last as a permanent relationship.)



          As others have noted, you can bypass the problem a bit using a Main Crew instead of a Main Character, or use a series of leads like GoT, but then they still tend to have a Main Character whose arc we are following for awhile, a fan favorite.



          The main rule of writing is the writing must be interesting. We identify with characters doing interesting things. Both IRL and in fiction, we like hearing about extraordinary people, we like hearing about brave people fighting for what is right, defeating evil and cruelty.



          So you are going to have to give your character some problem to solve. They don't have to be extraordinary; but also don't make them extraordinarily stupid or gullible or clumsy or foolhardy. They don't have to be a genius, but being so dumb the reader knows they are being dumb is going to be difficult for the reader to relate to emotionally; unless you are writing a farcical comedy (e.g. Dumb and Dumber). In the case of Flowers for Algernon, the character begins mentally disabled; but we relate because he becomes special, and the end is a tragic return to disability.



          But these are special cases, you can write an engaging character that is not special in any sense, other than having a problem they feel compelled to solve. Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story".






          share|improve this answer
























          • Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago











          • @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

            – Amadeus
            12 hours ago











          • It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago






          • 1





            @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

            – Amadeus
            11 hours ago



















          5














          It is harder to keep the reader engaged without one



          As you say a main character is someone for the reader to connect with. Ideally they will empathise with them and come to care about the character. Wanting to know what happens to them is enough to keep the pages turning.



          If you choose to go without a main character this can be harder to obtain. Instead you will need to draw from a cast of character, each having to work to connect with the reader. For a cast of 6 that can easily be 6 times as much work, plus additional work to manage the transitions. Even more work in preventing readers from disconnecting from the characters you haven't talked about in a while. Writing a good story that doesn't have a main character or characters is hard.



          That doesn't mean it can't be done.



          Game of Thrones is the most prominent example but there are many others. In GoT the 'main' characters are constantly rotating and we are unsure of who it is meant to be. The main character is whoever the POV is at a given time, each character is treated as equally important.






          share|improve this answer
























          • but why there is always need of Main character(s).

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago






          • 1





            @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

            – Peteris
            11 hours ago





















          1














          Calling it the "main character" is just an easy way to communicate the underlying mechanic in its most common form; the main character is just another way of saying, the focal-point of the story, or the thing that catches the reader's interest; what they follow.



          It could be a person, a place, a concept, a timeline, and any number of other interesting things. It just happens to usually be a person, because people are interesting and its easier to talk about them than many other things for any length of time in an engaging way.



          For example, think of when you were very young and learned a mind-expanding concept in an early science class that captivated you. In an analogous sense, that thing you learned about was the main character of that "story".






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "166"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44037%2fwill-it-be-accepted-if-there-is-no-main-character-stereotype%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            20














            Adding to linksassin's good answer about having a cast of characters rather than a main, I want to point out what you said:




            The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.




            This is an incorrect assumption. It's true that the MC in a lot of genres (I'm thinking about Young-adult fiction and fantasy, mainly) is often special in a way or another, but it doesn't have to be the case. It changes depending on the genre.
            This kind of stereotypical Main Character, who wins his struggles because he's special, is completely unnecessary. Fiction is full of protagonist that, while they do have skills and perks, are not "special" nor covered by plot armor.



            The real difference between a main character and a secondary one is time; how much time the author spend to show his struggles, describing his emotions and his thoughs, how much time is taken to develop his arc and so on. The more you write about a character, the more the audience will know him/her, and the more they will care (hopefully).



            If you don't want one MC, the easiest thing is to have two. Balancing two (interesting) characters, giving each one the same depht and an equally strong story arc, is surely challenging, but it can lead to interesting results. Also, chances are that the readers that won't be able to "click" with one of your MCs will be able to relate with the other. A classic example of this is The Betrothed by A.Manzoni, where both Renzo and Lucia are equally developed main characters.



            If you want you can add even more characters and move towards a group cast of main characters. GoT is a good example, but there are many more in literature. Remember that a group cast tend to subtract emphasys from the struggles of a single person to underline the struggles of a group of people, of a political situation, of a nation and so on depeding on the book.





            share





















            • 3





              +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

              – DoctorPenguin
              14 hours ago






            • 3





              LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

              – Darrel Hoffman
              12 hours ago






            • 3





              @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

              – DoctorPenguin
              11 hours ago






            • 3





              @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago








            • 2





              Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

              – bruglesco
              7 hours ago
















            20














            Adding to linksassin's good answer about having a cast of characters rather than a main, I want to point out what you said:




            The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.




            This is an incorrect assumption. It's true that the MC in a lot of genres (I'm thinking about Young-adult fiction and fantasy, mainly) is often special in a way or another, but it doesn't have to be the case. It changes depending on the genre.
            This kind of stereotypical Main Character, who wins his struggles because he's special, is completely unnecessary. Fiction is full of protagonist that, while they do have skills and perks, are not "special" nor covered by plot armor.



            The real difference between a main character and a secondary one is time; how much time the author spend to show his struggles, describing his emotions and his thoughs, how much time is taken to develop his arc and so on. The more you write about a character, the more the audience will know him/her, and the more they will care (hopefully).



            If you don't want one MC, the easiest thing is to have two. Balancing two (interesting) characters, giving each one the same depht and an equally strong story arc, is surely challenging, but it can lead to interesting results. Also, chances are that the readers that won't be able to "click" with one of your MCs will be able to relate with the other. A classic example of this is The Betrothed by A.Manzoni, where both Renzo and Lucia are equally developed main characters.



            If you want you can add even more characters and move towards a group cast of main characters. GoT is a good example, but there are many more in literature. Remember that a group cast tend to subtract emphasys from the struggles of a single person to underline the struggles of a group of people, of a political situation, of a nation and so on depeding on the book.





            share





















            • 3





              +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

              – DoctorPenguin
              14 hours ago






            • 3





              LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

              – Darrel Hoffman
              12 hours ago






            • 3





              @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

              – DoctorPenguin
              11 hours ago






            • 3





              @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago








            • 2





              Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

              – bruglesco
              7 hours ago














            20












            20








            20







            Adding to linksassin's good answer about having a cast of characters rather than a main, I want to point out what you said:




            The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.




            This is an incorrect assumption. It's true that the MC in a lot of genres (I'm thinking about Young-adult fiction and fantasy, mainly) is often special in a way or another, but it doesn't have to be the case. It changes depending on the genre.
            This kind of stereotypical Main Character, who wins his struggles because he's special, is completely unnecessary. Fiction is full of protagonist that, while they do have skills and perks, are not "special" nor covered by plot armor.



            The real difference between a main character and a secondary one is time; how much time the author spend to show his struggles, describing his emotions and his thoughs, how much time is taken to develop his arc and so on. The more you write about a character, the more the audience will know him/her, and the more they will care (hopefully).



            If you don't want one MC, the easiest thing is to have two. Balancing two (interesting) characters, giving each one the same depht and an equally strong story arc, is surely challenging, but it can lead to interesting results. Also, chances are that the readers that won't be able to "click" with one of your MCs will be able to relate with the other. A classic example of this is The Betrothed by A.Manzoni, where both Renzo and Lucia are equally developed main characters.



            If you want you can add even more characters and move towards a group cast of main characters. GoT is a good example, but there are many more in literature. Remember that a group cast tend to subtract emphasys from the struggles of a single person to underline the struggles of a group of people, of a political situation, of a nation and so on depeding on the book.





            share















            Adding to linksassin's good answer about having a cast of characters rather than a main, I want to point out what you said:




            The author takes special care of them. Provides them wise thinking. Good luck. A charm. In some cases special powers too. Sometimes readers bind that character to themselves, that's how they keep engaging with the story.




            This is an incorrect assumption. It's true that the MC in a lot of genres (I'm thinking about Young-adult fiction and fantasy, mainly) is often special in a way or another, but it doesn't have to be the case. It changes depending on the genre.
            This kind of stereotypical Main Character, who wins his struggles because he's special, is completely unnecessary. Fiction is full of protagonist that, while they do have skills and perks, are not "special" nor covered by plot armor.



            The real difference between a main character and a secondary one is time; how much time the author spend to show his struggles, describing his emotions and his thoughs, how much time is taken to develop his arc and so on. The more you write about a character, the more the audience will know him/her, and the more they will care (hopefully).



            If you don't want one MC, the easiest thing is to have two. Balancing two (interesting) characters, giving each one the same depht and an equally strong story arc, is surely challenging, but it can lead to interesting results. Also, chances are that the readers that won't be able to "click" with one of your MCs will be able to relate with the other. A classic example of this is The Betrothed by A.Manzoni, where both Renzo and Lucia are equally developed main characters.



            If you want you can add even more characters and move towards a group cast of main characters. GoT is a good example, but there are many more in literature. Remember that a group cast tend to subtract emphasys from the struggles of a single person to underline the struggles of a group of people, of a political situation, of a nation and so on depeding on the book.






            share













            share


            share








            edited 15 hours ago









            eirikdaude

            1034




            1034










            answered 16 hours ago









            LiquidLiquid

            8,18621868




            8,18621868








            • 3





              +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

              – DoctorPenguin
              14 hours ago






            • 3





              LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

              – Darrel Hoffman
              12 hours ago






            • 3





              @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

              – DoctorPenguin
              11 hours ago






            • 3





              @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago








            • 2





              Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

              – bruglesco
              7 hours ago














            • 3





              +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

              – DoctorPenguin
              14 hours ago






            • 3





              LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

              – Darrel Hoffman
              12 hours ago






            • 3





              @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

              – DoctorPenguin
              11 hours ago






            • 3





              @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago








            • 2





              Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

              – bruglesco
              7 hours ago








            3




            3





            +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

            – DoctorPenguin
            14 hours ago





            +1, I can think of a number of books I've read where the main character is naive, unlucky and not particularly gifted.

            – DoctorPenguin
            14 hours ago




            3




            3





            LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

            – Darrel Hoffman
            12 hours ago





            LotR would be another good example - while Frodo could ostensibly be considered the protagonist, he 1.) is really nobody special, has no powers or anything, and 2.) we spend half the books/films focusing on other people. This is even more clear-cut in the books as the way they are split (after Fellowship), we spend a great deal of consecutive time not on the Frodo/Sam arc before returning to them.

            – Darrel Hoffman
            12 hours ago




            3




            3





            @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

            – DoctorPenguin
            11 hours ago





            @Mr.Mindor That was my thought. Many protagonists succeed by overcoming personal challenges as opposed to being gifted some power that simply allows them to get what they want.

            – DoctorPenguin
            11 hours ago




            3




            3





            @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

            – Peteris
            11 hours ago







            @DoctorPenguin It's also quite plausible that the protagonists do not succeed, and the story ends in an acknowledgement that their goal is futile; there are quite a few stories about a failure to overcome these personal challenges.

            – Peteris
            11 hours ago






            2




            2





            Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

            – bruglesco
            7 hours ago





            Frodo has the support of a demigod, an heir apparent, the last of a mystical race, two armies, impenetrable armor and a magic ring. He is absolutely special.

            – bruglesco
            7 hours ago











            7














            I think you misunderstand the MC; the MC doesn't have to be extraordinary in any particular sense; and in most good stories the MC has weaknesses or flaws to overcome.



            The reason an MC is the main character is only because that is the character the reader most identifies with. That is the character whose thoughts and feelings and troubles are shown. They don't have to be special.



            Even when they are special, the stories tend to be about problems they can't necessarily solve with their special powers -- Superman's biggest problem (the traditional Superman) was that he is lovesick for Lois Lane, and can't be with her, and can't have a romantic relationship with her. All his super powers can't fix that problem. (In more modern tellings, Superman may hook up with Lois, but again it can't last as a permanent relationship.)



            As others have noted, you can bypass the problem a bit using a Main Crew instead of a Main Character, or use a series of leads like GoT, but then they still tend to have a Main Character whose arc we are following for awhile, a fan favorite.



            The main rule of writing is the writing must be interesting. We identify with characters doing interesting things. Both IRL and in fiction, we like hearing about extraordinary people, we like hearing about brave people fighting for what is right, defeating evil and cruelty.



            So you are going to have to give your character some problem to solve. They don't have to be extraordinary; but also don't make them extraordinarily stupid or gullible or clumsy or foolhardy. They don't have to be a genius, but being so dumb the reader knows they are being dumb is going to be difficult for the reader to relate to emotionally; unless you are writing a farcical comedy (e.g. Dumb and Dumber). In the case of Flowers for Algernon, the character begins mentally disabled; but we relate because he becomes special, and the end is a tragic return to disability.



            But these are special cases, you can write an engaging character that is not special in any sense, other than having a problem they feel compelled to solve. Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story".






            share|improve this answer
























            • Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago











            • @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

              – Amadeus
              12 hours ago











            • It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

              – Amadeus
              11 hours ago
















            7














            I think you misunderstand the MC; the MC doesn't have to be extraordinary in any particular sense; and in most good stories the MC has weaknesses or flaws to overcome.



            The reason an MC is the main character is only because that is the character the reader most identifies with. That is the character whose thoughts and feelings and troubles are shown. They don't have to be special.



            Even when they are special, the stories tend to be about problems they can't necessarily solve with their special powers -- Superman's biggest problem (the traditional Superman) was that he is lovesick for Lois Lane, and can't be with her, and can't have a romantic relationship with her. All his super powers can't fix that problem. (In more modern tellings, Superman may hook up with Lois, but again it can't last as a permanent relationship.)



            As others have noted, you can bypass the problem a bit using a Main Crew instead of a Main Character, or use a series of leads like GoT, but then they still tend to have a Main Character whose arc we are following for awhile, a fan favorite.



            The main rule of writing is the writing must be interesting. We identify with characters doing interesting things. Both IRL and in fiction, we like hearing about extraordinary people, we like hearing about brave people fighting for what is right, defeating evil and cruelty.



            So you are going to have to give your character some problem to solve. They don't have to be extraordinary; but also don't make them extraordinarily stupid or gullible or clumsy or foolhardy. They don't have to be a genius, but being so dumb the reader knows they are being dumb is going to be difficult for the reader to relate to emotionally; unless you are writing a farcical comedy (e.g. Dumb and Dumber). In the case of Flowers for Algernon, the character begins mentally disabled; but we relate because he becomes special, and the end is a tragic return to disability.



            But these are special cases, you can write an engaging character that is not special in any sense, other than having a problem they feel compelled to solve. Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story".






            share|improve this answer
























            • Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago











            • @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

              – Amadeus
              12 hours ago











            • It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

              – Amadeus
              11 hours ago














            7












            7








            7







            I think you misunderstand the MC; the MC doesn't have to be extraordinary in any particular sense; and in most good stories the MC has weaknesses or flaws to overcome.



            The reason an MC is the main character is only because that is the character the reader most identifies with. That is the character whose thoughts and feelings and troubles are shown. They don't have to be special.



            Even when they are special, the stories tend to be about problems they can't necessarily solve with their special powers -- Superman's biggest problem (the traditional Superman) was that he is lovesick for Lois Lane, and can't be with her, and can't have a romantic relationship with her. All his super powers can't fix that problem. (In more modern tellings, Superman may hook up with Lois, but again it can't last as a permanent relationship.)



            As others have noted, you can bypass the problem a bit using a Main Crew instead of a Main Character, or use a series of leads like GoT, but then they still tend to have a Main Character whose arc we are following for awhile, a fan favorite.



            The main rule of writing is the writing must be interesting. We identify with characters doing interesting things. Both IRL and in fiction, we like hearing about extraordinary people, we like hearing about brave people fighting for what is right, defeating evil and cruelty.



            So you are going to have to give your character some problem to solve. They don't have to be extraordinary; but also don't make them extraordinarily stupid or gullible or clumsy or foolhardy. They don't have to be a genius, but being so dumb the reader knows they are being dumb is going to be difficult for the reader to relate to emotionally; unless you are writing a farcical comedy (e.g. Dumb and Dumber). In the case of Flowers for Algernon, the character begins mentally disabled; but we relate because he becomes special, and the end is a tragic return to disability.



            But these are special cases, you can write an engaging character that is not special in any sense, other than having a problem they feel compelled to solve. Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story".






            share|improve this answer













            I think you misunderstand the MC; the MC doesn't have to be extraordinary in any particular sense; and in most good stories the MC has weaknesses or flaws to overcome.



            The reason an MC is the main character is only because that is the character the reader most identifies with. That is the character whose thoughts and feelings and troubles are shown. They don't have to be special.



            Even when they are special, the stories tend to be about problems they can't necessarily solve with their special powers -- Superman's biggest problem (the traditional Superman) was that he is lovesick for Lois Lane, and can't be with her, and can't have a romantic relationship with her. All his super powers can't fix that problem. (In more modern tellings, Superman may hook up with Lois, but again it can't last as a permanent relationship.)



            As others have noted, you can bypass the problem a bit using a Main Crew instead of a Main Character, or use a series of leads like GoT, but then they still tend to have a Main Character whose arc we are following for awhile, a fan favorite.



            The main rule of writing is the writing must be interesting. We identify with characters doing interesting things. Both IRL and in fiction, we like hearing about extraordinary people, we like hearing about brave people fighting for what is right, defeating evil and cruelty.



            So you are going to have to give your character some problem to solve. They don't have to be extraordinary; but also don't make them extraordinarily stupid or gullible or clumsy or foolhardy. They don't have to be a genius, but being so dumb the reader knows they are being dumb is going to be difficult for the reader to relate to emotionally; unless you are writing a farcical comedy (e.g. Dumb and Dumber). In the case of Flowers for Algernon, the character begins mentally disabled; but we relate because he becomes special, and the end is a tragic return to disability.



            But these are special cases, you can write an engaging character that is not special in any sense, other than having a problem they feel compelled to solve. Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story".







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 13 hours ago









            AmadeusAmadeus

            56.4k572183




            56.4k572183













            • Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago











            • @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

              – Amadeus
              12 hours ago











            • It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

              – Amadeus
              11 hours ago



















            • Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago











            • @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

              – Amadeus
              12 hours ago











            • It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

              – Amadeus
              11 hours ago

















            Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago





            Without the latter, you just don't have what most of us consider a "story". does It means a 'story' cannot work if there is nothing to overcome/solve either by MC or by main crew.

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago













            @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

            – Amadeus
            12 hours ago





            @Prasad_Joshi Yes, it means that. Otherwise, you have a "slice of life" or "character study"; and both of these require an "interesting life" or "interesting character", respectively. A story about an ordinary person living their life without problems has no stakes. It isn't interesting. The reader is not driven to turn pages to find out "what happens next," because there is (as you say) nothing for the MC or main crew to deal with. That is not a story. To keep readers reading you need tension, conflict, failures and wins. The MC needs something to lose if they don't do something about it.

            – Amadeus
            12 hours ago













            It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago





            It means we got to find some problems with our MC and then ways to overcome them, this is how we build the base of the story?

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago




            1




            1





            @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

            – Amadeus
            11 hours ago





            @Prasad_Joshi To speak more generally, you need a question. That can be a problem, or an opportunity or ambition we aren't sure they can reach. It can be something emotional for them to overcome. It can be a love story. It can be a heist, like the movie Ocean's Eleven. You need a main question that will sustain the reader's interest in how it all turns out. A story requires introducing the character, then the big question, then showing their difficulty in dealing with it and what they learn, etc, and then the conclusion of "how it all turns out".

            – Amadeus
            11 hours ago











            5














            It is harder to keep the reader engaged without one



            As you say a main character is someone for the reader to connect with. Ideally they will empathise with them and come to care about the character. Wanting to know what happens to them is enough to keep the pages turning.



            If you choose to go without a main character this can be harder to obtain. Instead you will need to draw from a cast of character, each having to work to connect with the reader. For a cast of 6 that can easily be 6 times as much work, plus additional work to manage the transitions. Even more work in preventing readers from disconnecting from the characters you haven't talked about in a while. Writing a good story that doesn't have a main character or characters is hard.



            That doesn't mean it can't be done.



            Game of Thrones is the most prominent example but there are many others. In GoT the 'main' characters are constantly rotating and we are unsure of who it is meant to be. The main character is whoever the POV is at a given time, each character is treated as equally important.






            share|improve this answer
























            • but why there is always need of Main character(s).

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago


















            5














            It is harder to keep the reader engaged without one



            As you say a main character is someone for the reader to connect with. Ideally they will empathise with them and come to care about the character. Wanting to know what happens to them is enough to keep the pages turning.



            If you choose to go without a main character this can be harder to obtain. Instead you will need to draw from a cast of character, each having to work to connect with the reader. For a cast of 6 that can easily be 6 times as much work, plus additional work to manage the transitions. Even more work in preventing readers from disconnecting from the characters you haven't talked about in a while. Writing a good story that doesn't have a main character or characters is hard.



            That doesn't mean it can't be done.



            Game of Thrones is the most prominent example but there are many others. In GoT the 'main' characters are constantly rotating and we are unsure of who it is meant to be. The main character is whoever the POV is at a given time, each character is treated as equally important.






            share|improve this answer
























            • but why there is always need of Main character(s).

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago
















            5












            5








            5







            It is harder to keep the reader engaged without one



            As you say a main character is someone for the reader to connect with. Ideally they will empathise with them and come to care about the character. Wanting to know what happens to them is enough to keep the pages turning.



            If you choose to go without a main character this can be harder to obtain. Instead you will need to draw from a cast of character, each having to work to connect with the reader. For a cast of 6 that can easily be 6 times as much work, plus additional work to manage the transitions. Even more work in preventing readers from disconnecting from the characters you haven't talked about in a while. Writing a good story that doesn't have a main character or characters is hard.



            That doesn't mean it can't be done.



            Game of Thrones is the most prominent example but there are many others. In GoT the 'main' characters are constantly rotating and we are unsure of who it is meant to be. The main character is whoever the POV is at a given time, each character is treated as equally important.






            share|improve this answer













            It is harder to keep the reader engaged without one



            As you say a main character is someone for the reader to connect with. Ideally they will empathise with them and come to care about the character. Wanting to know what happens to them is enough to keep the pages turning.



            If you choose to go without a main character this can be harder to obtain. Instead you will need to draw from a cast of character, each having to work to connect with the reader. For a cast of 6 that can easily be 6 times as much work, plus additional work to manage the transitions. Even more work in preventing readers from disconnecting from the characters you haven't talked about in a while. Writing a good story that doesn't have a main character or characters is hard.



            That doesn't mean it can't be done.



            Game of Thrones is the most prominent example but there are many others. In GoT the 'main' characters are constantly rotating and we are unsure of who it is meant to be. The main character is whoever the POV is at a given time, each character is treated as equally important.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 19 hours ago









            linksassinlinksassin

            1,782625




            1,782625













            • but why there is always need of Main character(s).

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago





















            • but why there is always need of Main character(s).

              – Prasad_Joshi
              12 hours ago






            • 1





              @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

              – Peteris
              11 hours ago



















            but why there is always need of Main character(s).

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago





            but why there is always need of Main character(s).

            – Prasad_Joshi
            12 hours ago




            1




            1





            @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

            – Peteris
            11 hours ago







            @Prasad_Joshi the story has to be about something, focused on something. Often (but not always) that focus is a particular character, the protagonist; but there can be stories without main characters. For example, the book (not the film) "World War Z" and especially "The Zombie Survival Guide" which came before it is a decent example of a non-character focused narrative.

            – Peteris
            11 hours ago













            1














            Calling it the "main character" is just an easy way to communicate the underlying mechanic in its most common form; the main character is just another way of saying, the focal-point of the story, or the thing that catches the reader's interest; what they follow.



            It could be a person, a place, a concept, a timeline, and any number of other interesting things. It just happens to usually be a person, because people are interesting and its easier to talk about them than many other things for any length of time in an engaging way.



            For example, think of when you were very young and learned a mind-expanding concept in an early science class that captivated you. In an analogous sense, that thing you learned about was the main character of that "story".






            share|improve this answer




























              1














              Calling it the "main character" is just an easy way to communicate the underlying mechanic in its most common form; the main character is just another way of saying, the focal-point of the story, or the thing that catches the reader's interest; what they follow.



              It could be a person, a place, a concept, a timeline, and any number of other interesting things. It just happens to usually be a person, because people are interesting and its easier to talk about them than many other things for any length of time in an engaging way.



              For example, think of when you were very young and learned a mind-expanding concept in an early science class that captivated you. In an analogous sense, that thing you learned about was the main character of that "story".






              share|improve this answer


























                1












                1








                1







                Calling it the "main character" is just an easy way to communicate the underlying mechanic in its most common form; the main character is just another way of saying, the focal-point of the story, or the thing that catches the reader's interest; what they follow.



                It could be a person, a place, a concept, a timeline, and any number of other interesting things. It just happens to usually be a person, because people are interesting and its easier to talk about them than many other things for any length of time in an engaging way.



                For example, think of when you were very young and learned a mind-expanding concept in an early science class that captivated you. In an analogous sense, that thing you learned about was the main character of that "story".






                share|improve this answer













                Calling it the "main character" is just an easy way to communicate the underlying mechanic in its most common form; the main character is just another way of saying, the focal-point of the story, or the thing that catches the reader's interest; what they follow.



                It could be a person, a place, a concept, a timeline, and any number of other interesting things. It just happens to usually be a person, because people are interesting and its easier to talk about them than many other things for any length of time in an engaging way.



                For example, think of when you were very young and learned a mind-expanding concept in an early science class that captivated you. In an analogous sense, that thing you learned about was the main character of that "story".







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 9 hours ago









                kayleeFrye_onDeckkayleeFrye_onDeck

                1413




                1413






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44037%2fwill-it-be-accepted-if-there-is-no-main-character-stereotype%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                    He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                    Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029