Will it be accepted, if there is no ''Main Character" stereotype?
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
characters storyline protagonist
edited 5 hours ago
Secespitus
6,55233274
6,55233274
asked 19 hours ago
Prasad_JoshiPrasad_Joshi
387315
387315
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
|
show 10 more comments
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".
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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".
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
|
show 10 more comments
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.
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
|
show 10 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 10 more comments
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
|
show 10 more comments
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".
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
add a comment |
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".
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
add a comment |
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".
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".
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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".
add a comment |
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".
add a comment |
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".
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".
answered 9 hours ago
kayleeFrye_onDeckkayleeFrye_onDeck
1413
1413
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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