How many Protagonists (or are they)?

[Omits]

I understand Sci-Fi does have more than one of these (can't think of any examples offhand). In my novel I have a main character, of course and 'in charge', but there are others who have an individual life line through the novel e.g. his friend, three Androids who work alonside (one who is 'attached' to him), a few Aliens and even a sentient AI community (Spaceship apps if you like). What's the line between these being 'other characters' and them turning into protagonists? Btw, I'm a novice at writing so researching all the mechanisms for writing and subjectwise. Thanks.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I understand Sci-Fi does have more than one of these (can't think of any examples offhand). In my novel I have a main character, of course and 'in charge', but there are others who have an individual life line through the novel e.g. his friend, three Androids who work alonside (one who is 'attached' to him), a few Aliens and even a sentient AI community (Spaceship apps if you like). What's the line between these being 'other characters' and them turning into protagonists? Btw, I'm a novice at writing so researching all the mechanisms for writing and subjectwise. Thanks.

I don't think there is a line, as such. I have one world with a lot of characters in it, which ended up with a three way narrative of equal length, but the protagonist was still the person that the story revolved around. That's usually how I decide it: where is the focus of the overarching story, and who owns the resolution of it? Once I work that out, that tells me who the protagonist is. The others, then, can become as big as they like, and as in depth as they like, but their story will always be a side arc to the main one I've identified.

I do think the more rounded secondary characters are, the more depth in the story, so I wouldn't hold back in developing them. But, of course, your main character needs to be at least as well developed and, normally, more so.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I prefer to write using multiple PoVs. There is usually one main character. but I find it nice to have other characters reporting action when the main character is not present, this can even be an antagonist. For a recent science fiction example, look at The Martian by Andy Weir. While there is a definite main character, other characters, especially those in the spaceship, that have significant plot arcs.

 

[The Big Peat]

I like the word deuteragonist here.

"In literature, the deuteragonist or secondary main character is the second most important character of a narrative, after the protagonist and before the tritagonist. The deuteragonist often acts as a constant companion to the protagonist or someone who continues actively aiding a protagonist."

It's a bit of an old-timey split, but I think it is useful for a lot of books where there's a lot of important characters, but one is primus inter pares, the big cheese, the head honcho, the main character, the protagonist and all that.

I like what Jo says about who owns the resolution as the way to identify the difference between the protagonist and the deuteragonist(s). You can also identify it as once you've done all the set up, which character has the main thread to begin with?

That said, there are books that defy this. Good luck to anyone working out the protagonist in Guy Gavriel Kay's The Fionavar Tapestry.


In any case, to answer the OP's question better - here's some questions for "are they minor or important characters"

- Do they get a PoV?
- Do they get an arc of change?
- Do their choices affect the plot?

If the answer to one of those question is yes, it's a good chance they're a major character/deuteragonist/secondary protagonist/whatever you want to call it (unless they're the villain).

If the answer is yes twice it's pretty much a done deal.

I do think the more rounded secondary characters are, the more depth in the story, so I wouldn't hold back in developing them. But, of course, your main character needs to be at least as well developed and, normally, more so.

Tangential, and possibly devil's advocate, but I feel like books where the protagonist isn't all that developed so they make for easy reader identification and the secondary characters are a great deal more developed aren't uncommon.

 

[tinkerdan]

If I remember correctly, Robert Heinlein often had(a trope)an older couple of older gentleman who stepped in to help the protagonist for no other reason than it was the right thing to do and they liked the protagonist.

Dean Koontz does the same in some of his novels.

 

[AllanR]

Sometimes the protagonist can be a team and each member gets their own arcs and stories along the way.

 

[Swank]

Most Peter Hamilton books have multiple protagonists in different places. Later Dune books do this, as do several of Gibson's stories. Luke, Leia and Han are arguably equally protagonistic. (Protagoning? Protogan?)

 

[TheLandsofSummer]

The protagonist is the primary person who moves the plot forward, that is, their decisions cause the narrative to happen. Other characters may also contribute to this, but generally there will be one who contributes the most.

I believe the suggestion of multiple protagonists implies multiple plots/ subplots, each of which gets its own protagonist, i.e. John Snow is the protagonist of the wall storyline, Ned Stark is the protagonist at King's Landing, etc.

Or, to comment on Swank's example above, Luke is inarguably the protagonist of A New Hope, but by Return of the Jedi, Han and Leia have enough of their own stuff going on that they've arguably reached protagonist status, which is why the ending has three different scenes cut together.

 

[msstice]

where the protagonist isn't all that developed so they make for easy reader identification

Do you mean that the character is purposely under-defined so that the reader can imagine it is them and fill in the gaps?

 

[The Big Peat]

Do you mean that the character is purposely under-defined so that the reader can imagine it is them and fill in the gaps?

That, or they are defined in such a way that readers can easily see similarities and less easily see differences, which tends to make them feel like other such MCs and less their own unique thing.

I think anime is the main genre where this is an acknowledged thing and my main example, Aang, is from an anime inspired TV show. Aang has a certain androgynity in appearance, his main motivation is saving the world, his main mistakes come from saving the world being a lot of pressure, he lacks the obvious outsized characteristics of the rest of his friends... but I'm sure most SFF readers can think of a few works with an MC who, intentionally or not, resembles that.

 

[Swank]

That, or they are defined in such a way that readers can easily see similarities and less easily see differences, which tends to make them feel like other such MCs and less their own unique thing.

I think anime is the main genre where this is an acknowledged thing and my main example, Aang, is from an anime inspired TV show. Aang has a certain androgynity in appearance, his main motivation is saving the world, his main mistakes come from saving the world being a lot of pressure, he lacks the obvious outsized characteristics of the rest of his friends... but I'm sure most SFF readers can think of a few works with an MC who, intentionally or not, resembles that.

I think this is true, especially since it allows the reader/viewer to project themselves onto the protagonist. Neo from the Matrix is pretty much a blank slate - he seems to have no life and no strong preferences compared to what is hinted at by the other characters. I have a vague recollection of a number of protagonists in books and media serving as much as gathering points for the other characters then as agents for themselves.




BUT, all this talk revolves around this axiomatic assumption that we can't even use the word "protagonists" to describe characters in a single story. Fiction has rules to be broken. The 'one true protagonist' rule is one of them.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think this is true, especially since it allows the reader/viewer to project themselves onto the protagonist. Neo from the Matrix is pretty much a blank slate - he seems to have no life and no strong preferences compared to what is hinted at by the other characters. I have a vague recollection of a number of protagonists in books and media serving as much as gathering points for the other characters then as agents for themselves.




BUT, all this talk revolves around this axiomatic assumption that we can't even use the word "protagonists" to describe characters in a single story. Fiction has rules to be broken. The 'one true protagonist' rule is one of them.

Not necessarily. I'd consider Luke Skywalker a good example of this, and you just made a good case for Star Wars as multiple protagonist. Some will make the case for Avatar the Last Airbender as multi-protagonist too. For my money Jon Snow comes real close too and Song of Ice and Fire is about as ensemble lead as you can get.

 

[Omits]

Very interesting replies. Thanks. I see now I have the main protagonist, an AI female he creates to represent him in a security role (also a deception), a PA he rescues and hires, life long friend (my Prot is in his 70s) and a few lesser ones on the 'team'. The antagonists are world authorities who come together sometimes as a character or an orgnisation (like an anti AI movement, or China!). I guess using China is probly now a sort of trope in Sci-Fi?

 

[tinkerdan]

I am recently reading the series Sentients of Orion by Marianne de pierres and it is a great example of this.
There are about four or five stories running parallel that eventually begin to collide, but it is often difficult to sort out who might be considered protagonists in the story. Done well though it seems that because all events converge into the whole story that everything is too tidily drawn together and the characters feel like they have little if any agency. They are currently being pushed to specific points of action.

That might be some sort of trade off in having so many involved characters.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Very interesting replies. Thanks. I see now I have the main protagonist, an AI female he creates to represent him in a security role (also a deception), a PA he rescues and hires, life long friend (my Prot is in his 70s) and a few lesser ones on the 'team'. The antagonists are world authorities who come together sometimes as a character or an orgnisation (like an anti AI movement, or China!). I guess using China is probly now a sort of trope in Sci-Fi?

Your description of your antagonist made me think of the "government" in Firefly/Serenity.

But, of course, fighting against "The Man" is a fairly common concept in literature.

Best fortunes with your writing!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

In contemporary literature, it is usually relatively easy to identify the protagonist (or alternating protagonists if we accept that there can even be such a thing as more than one protagonist—something I'm not inclined to dispute, though there are those who would and do).

But it gets more complicated if you look at 19th and early twentieth century literature, because there are many classic stories where the question of just who is the protagonist may be exceedingly blurred. For example, the Sherlock Holmes stories rarely present Holmes's viewpoint. The stories are generally told in Dr. Watson's viewpoint, as a first person narrator, and though he often takes some small part in the action, he certainly doesn't drive it. It's the opposite, really, because when he does take part in the resolution of the story, he does so on the instructions of Holmes, fulfilling some role assigned to him by the detective (and not always clear about what that role truly is), so he doesn't even drive his own actions regarding the mystery plot. It is Watson who tells the story (with one or two exceptions), Watson with whom the reader identifies and sympathizes (Holmes, by contrast, is far too cold to attract much in the way of sympathy) which for most readers most of the time would identify a character as the protagonist, and yet it is Holmes around whom the story revolves, Holmes who drives the plot, Holmes whom (I believe) most readers would identify as the protagonist. And certainly interest in Holmes and how he will solve the case is the reason why readers read the story in the first place. Which is just as Doyle plans it.

In (The) Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson, except for in one letter near the end where Dr. Jekyll explains himself, the story is told from the viewpoint of Jekyll's friend Utterson, who observes some of the action, has other parts of the action described to him by other observers. In terms of investigating and solving the mystery of what it all means, of what is really happening, Utterson does drive the story and is generally considered the protagonist (when he is remembered at all, that is) and yet is so unimportant to the central story that most dramatic adaptations give him no role at all.

In Wuthering Heights, by Emily Brontë, neither Heathcliff nor Cathy appears as the viewpoint character (except brief fragments of writing that come to light), though they are certainly the main characters, the characters most active in and acted on by the events, the characters who drive those events, a role which nobody else plays exceptCatherine's young daughter later in the story The main viewpoint characters are Nelly Dean the housekeeper, who narrates most of the story to the new tenant of Thrushcross Grange, Mr. Lockwood, or Lockwood himself who observes later events. Nelly does play a minor role in the action of the main plot, but she certainly doesn't make things happen or effect the other characters (though she tries, bless her), and though the story would be incomplete without Lockwood's observations of scenes which Nelly never sees, I don't think anyone would really consider either of them the protagonists.

And then there are numerous Victorian gothic tales and ghost stories where there is a framing story involving a character who narrates the story, who serves as a viewpoint for much of it, who may take some role in the events, but again is an observer rather than an engine of the plot. For example, "The Old Nurse's Tale" by Elizabeth Gaskell.

All of the above (and many others like them) undoubtedly represent successful storytelling (and I speak of being artistically successful, not just of their longevity and popularity), so depending on the stories we choose to tell, recognizing for ourselves the protagonist(s) and portraying them in such a way that critics and other readers may clearly know who they are may not be quite so vitally important as we tend to think.

If not rigidly following (modern) guidelines about what a protagonist is and does was good enough for the likes of Doyle, Stevenson, Brontë , and Gaskell, then it should be good enough for us—if, that is, we are skilled enough to pull off our stories as well as they did theirs.

 

[Swank]

But it gets more complicated if you look at 19th and early twentieth century literature, because there are many classic stories where the question of just who is the protagonist may be exceedingly blurred. For example, the Sherlock Holmes stories rarely present Holmes's viewpoint.

What does the narrator have to do with who is the protagonist? We don't talk about god being the protagonist in an omniscient third person story.

Armor is a modern SF tale told in part by a non-protagonist character.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

What does the narrator have to do with who is the protagonist? We don't talk about god being the protagonist in an omniscient third person story.

Armor is a modern SF tale told in part by a non-protagonist character.

But God (if it is God, which is a bit of an assumption, one that not everyone would make, if they even think about who is telling the story) does not identify himself as the narrator in an omniscient third person story, nor, far more significantly, appear to take any part in the action, usually. So he's not even a character, let alone the main character.

But I did not say that the narrator is the protagonist. Actually, I think I was saying pretty much the opposite. In a first person narrative where the narrator appears in the story, I do believe there is a tendency to assume that character is the protagonist, or at least that they ought to be, but I think I have demonstrated that this is not always the case.

 

[Swank]

But God (if it is God, which is a bit of an assumption, one that not everyone would make, if they even think about who is telling the story) does not identify himself as the narrator in an omniscient third person story, nor, far more significantly, appear to take any part in the action, usually. So he's not even a character, let alone the main character.

But I did not say that the narrator is the protagonist. Actually, I think I was saying pretty much the opposite. In a first person narrative where the narrator appears in the story, I do believe there is a tendency to assume that character is the protagonist, or at least that they ought to be, but I think I have demonstrated that this is not always the case.

I was using the omniscient narrator as a ridiculous example to illustrate that having a voice in a story does not make the story about you.

And you seem to be making a similar point, but only after suggesting it might be hard to tell who the protagonist is because of who is narrating. I don't think anyone would suggest Watson is the protagonist - unless they are simply in an incredibly contrarian state of mind.

Another modern example would be something like The Virgin Suicides.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But, Swank, I wasn't the one who introduced the idea of POV characters. I was basically responding to earlier posts mentioning POV, including this one:

In any case, to answer the OP's question better - here's some questions for "are they minor or important characters"

- Do they get a PoV?
- Do they get an arc of change?
- Do their choices affect the plot?

If the answer to one of those question is yes, it's a good chance they're a major character/deuteragonist/secondary protagonist/whatever you want to call it (unless they're the villain).

While there is merit in what Peat says, I immediately thought about Watson as a counter-example. Peat, of course, said "a good chance" not that it was inevitable that such a character was a protagonist (or the protagonist), and I thought it was important to emphasize that it was simply that: "a good chance" not a certainty. First person narrators make the question of whose viewpoint a story is told in easier to answer, and I chose stories that I thought everyone here might at least have heard of, to make my point even clearer. Somehow that failed to be the case, since it seems, Swank, that you misunderstood what I was saying. Or maybe just thought that I was muddying the waters. But the issue was already before us.

In The Sign of Four, Watson even gets an arc of change, since he starts out a bachelor and ends up meeting and marrying one of the other characters. Nevertheless, I would not be so "contrarian" as to call him the protagonist, although perhaps in this story he gives off more protagonist-y vibes than in some of the others.

But my main point, and I stick by it, is that different readers, teachers, critics, etc. might have different ways of identifying who the protagonist is (or who the protagonists are) and I wonder if it is a question we even need to ask ourselves as we write. I mean, yes, if something seems off, it never hurts to ask ourselves lots of questions to clarify our aims, but if something is working, it might be better not to torture ourselves with technicalities.