How many Protagonists (or are they)?

[paranoid marvin]

I'm not sure that it actually matters? You write your story the way that you want to , and the 'protagonist' will work themselves out, or the reader will decide for themselves.

In LOTR, personally I see Sam as the protagonist. He's the only character who is there at both the beginning and the end, he is the one who saves the day (whilst Frodo is usually the one in peril, or making incorrect decisions) and he partially writes the story. From my point of view, Frodo is almost the same person at the beginning and end of his journey - no real 'arc' at all - whereas Sam is the one who undergoes the most significant changes.

 

[The Big Peat]

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:



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.

I would point out that I was talking secondary major characters, rather than *the* main character, and I think calling Watson the deuteragonist is pretty spot on.

That aside, it's always a good idea to point out examples of the alternative to "a good chance" and what it looks like. And an even better idea to point out the variety and malleability of stories so we know what we can work with.

I like simple answers like the one I gave not only because they allow people who are confused and lost to simplify their problems and move forwards, but because it also gives people who go "well, no, that's me" a platform to see how they're different to most stories if that's what they want.

 

[Toby Frost]

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.

I think this is a very good point. It's not the kind of question I ever ask myself when writing: in fact, it feels more like a tool of after-then-event literary criticism than book writing. Of course, different things work for different people, but the thoughts that I have when coming up with a story don't tend to include any technical terms like this. My own thought process tends to be more rambling: "What if there's a guy who does X, but then Y happens, which makes Z angry, so he decides..." etc.

 

[Omits]

This brings me to thinking that the characters in a story trying to make sense of a future where an advanced but supposedly 'benign' alien visit happens will not be individuals saving the world (if indeed possible) but interest groups, nations, activists, etc. (some antagonists) all getting involved. So I'm going with the idea of a group of characters (with their own POV is that right?) working with the 'Aliens' trying to pull something good out of the mess of fear which such an event would induce. I need to think a lot more on this.