Can an MC NOT face personal danger?

Nero Wolf rarely faced personal danger. Even Archie didn't get into trouble that often.

MM

I don't think I would follow a MC through 90,000 words unless he has something at stake.

That doesn't mean it has to be a physical fight. It could be his professional reputation; rescuing a kidnapped child; or confronting his own past.

In my novel, my MC and antagonist don't meet till the end. There has to be a confrontation or else it's a cop-out ending. However, there is a psychological battle of wills throughout the book with the tension rising.

I agree that the stakes need to be high - somebody or something he really cares about probably should be threatened.

I think it might depend on what 'danger' means. I can't see a main character of any successful dramatic story not facing a threat to a personal stake... But it might be physical, social or psychological. Whatever it is, if you want readers to read it then I reckon it ought to be as important as if the main character were risking death.

Once upon a time, I think you could get away with not having personal stake for the MC. I don't think the same is true today. Readers seem to expect.

This was actually cited as one of the primary reasons my first novel was rejected-- lack of personal stake. Apparently a professional investigator cannot just do their job (as Phillip Marlowe used to do.) They must have personal involvement in the situation. =P

Clair Dickson said:

Apparently a professional investigator cannot just do their job (as Phillip Marlowe used to do.) They must have personal involvement in the situation. =P

Click to expand...

Marlowe certainly had a personal stake in his investigations -- he had strong opinions about everyone and What Was Justice and How Things Should Be... Often, he wasn't meeting his rent too... Even Holmes, who seldom got physical, had a personal stake in his investigations -- he'd get depressed when he had no mysteries to entertain him, and he had his own view of what sort of social order was fair and just.

I think it's true though that the emphasis on personal stake is higher now. We tend to see M/S/T stories as stories of our part in the social order, rather than the repair of the social order.

Arguably, the best character to fit the story is the one that cares most about the situation. A character who's just doing his job can be replaced by any other, but a character who's locked into the situation by personal problems, or whose personal problems complicate the situation, becomes a far more compelling window into the story.

Yesterday I watched the mystery Gone, Baby, Gone, featuring Ben Affleck's debut directorial role and based on Dennis Lehane's novel. The investigators in that are a couple, each doing their job for very different stakes. He's a local boy and for him the mystery is about Protecting What's Right. For her, it's about Helping People. For the cops it's about Doing the Job, or Restoring the Balance, while for the victims and bystanders it's about Relieving My Pain or Keeping Me Comfortable or Showing Me Respect or Keeping Things on an Even Keel. Those different perspectives constantly come into conflict. Arguably, without those perspectives there would be no character conflict on the way to the answers. And the climax of the story is not a race to catch the bad-guy but rather an argument over what to do with the answer -- so the tension at the climax emerges directly from those conflicting perspectives, which in turn arise from personal stakes.

Ruv Draba - Thanks for the fascinating paragraph about Gone, Baby, Gone! I've been looking for that in the TV line-up. Now I want to see it even more.

Ruv Draba said:

Even Holmes, who seldom got physical, had a personal stake in his investigations -- he'd get depressed when he had no mysteries to entertain him, and he had his own view of what sort of social order was fair and just.

Click to expand...

I agree with the above. I don't think Personal "Danger" is the right word, so I don't think its necessary. (Unless it's a thriller, then I would expect it.)
Maybe Personal "Conflict" is a better word. I think Holmes is a good example. Even though Holmes and Watson were best buds, talk about conflict! Holmes dabbling in addictive drugs, lying to police so he stays a step ahead of them, what would be considered breaking and entering because he thinks it serves the greater good, unsociable behavior, arrogance -- in other words -- the total opposite of Watson. And their on the same team!

I would say as long as the MC isn't sailing through the story as easy as pie, you're OK. If it were easy for him, there would be no point in reading the book would there? We would get the idea pretty quick that no matter what -- he was going to win, blah, blah blah, close book, put on shelf.

He does need obstacles or personal conflict which doesn't always have to mean getting shot at or a bar fight. I want to be uncertain what will happen next. Will he make a choice that goes against his grain or do what he's always done? How does his choice affect what he does next? Was it the right choice or wrong? Will he realize it in time?

So for me, sometimes a bar fight or the MC all of a sudden in a warehouse shooting at the bad guy ruins the flow and seems random if it doesn't fit the context of the way the plot is going or what the MC would make a conscious choice to get involved in. Even if he's minding his own business and is shot AT, I mean really, how many people would know what to do? If it's not in the MC's make up to act like James Bond or be trained like him, it doesn't work for me.

MarkEsq said:

I'm almost halfway through a first draft and realized that my MC has not, himself, faced any personal danger. He's found bodies, chased bad guys (and a good guy) but not been shot at or been in a fist fight.

What do you guys think? The story is kind of cat-and-mouse, and he's not sure who he's chasing. If I make him fight the bad guy, then the bad guy;s cover is blown. It just struck me that MCs usually get into some kind of scrape before the end. Before halfway, even.

Click to expand...

There are a LOT of current M/T/S novels where the MC doesn't face any personal danger early on, if at all. Think of most (not all) of Parker's Spenser novels. Think of most (not all) of Kellerman's Delaware novels.

The danger is simply inherent in what or who they are pursuing.

"Fighting the bad guy" is more a requirement of genre cinema than the better M/T/S novels of today.

The latest Crais, THE FIRST RULE, featuring Joe Pike is a "pursuit" of answers (and bad guys) where in the 3/4 of the book, there is NO danger for the MC... but it is absolutely gripping.

Since this isn't the late 1800s, I just don't think Holmes is a fitting comparison. This is not the same world, publishing or otherwise.

I don't need personal stake for my investigators-- period. But I accept that others do. That's why I scrapped my entire first novel to start over and give my damn investigator a personal stake. (Sorry, there's still some bitterness over that.) I don't need my lead angsting over every choice-- I like it better when they know what to do.

Bah... I dont' fit. Big surprise. No wonder I'm having such a hard time writing the new novel.

No, personal danger is not necessary. I've read some pretty good mysteries where no one faced danger of any kind.

But Sherlock Holmes and Watson both faced personal danger on a routine basis, of course, so I wouldn't use those stories to say a character didn't have to do so.

I don't think the MC needs a personal stake in the matter. The mystery is about the crime and its resolution. Not if the MC gets threatened. As long as there is tension within the story, maybe a question of who will be killed next, or when will the bomb explode or something, the MC's personal stake in it shouldn't matter.

The protagonist is only as strong as the antagonist he faces in any given scene, real or just in thought. A weak antagonist and your protagonist sort of looks weak to the reader. While physical danger may not be involved, as others have said, there has to be something at stake in order for your protagonist to be interesting to the readers...

Shadow_Ferret said:

I don't think the MC needs a personal stake in the matter. The mystery is about the crime and its resolution. Not if the MC gets threatened. As long as there is tension within the story, maybe a question of who will be killed next, or when will the bomb explode or something, the MC's personal stake in it shouldn't matter.

Click to expand...

But would the MC be interested in the matter if they did not have a personal stake in the mystry? If the MC does not have a personal stake in the matter, then why is he involved? Why should the reader care about the MC, other than as the storyteller? The higher the stakes, the higher the tension...

Maybe it's just me, but Mark if the MC doesn't know who the baddie is, and is in fact unsure of both himself and of the case, then THAT'S the personal stake. Either of reputation, sanity or both. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. But that would be a great hook.

thothguard51 said:

But would the MC be interested in the matter if they did not have a personal stake in the mystry? If the MC does not have a personal stake in the matter, then why is he involved? Why should the reader care about the MC, other than as the storyteller? The higher the stakes, the higher the tension...

Click to expand...

I'm assuming its their job or something. His personal stake doesn't have to be any more than he won't get paid ergo won't eat that week or he's got his boss on his back to get the crime solved.

His personal stake does not have to be a physical threat from the antagonist.

OK maybe not the best example as H&W did on a routine basis face personal danger, but not always, so there needs to be other conflicts or stakes as is said, whether or not there is "danger". I felt H&W's personalities was a good example of other conflicts going on, that without them IMO, the stories wouldn't be as good. If there is physical danger, maybe I'm just the type of reader who would still expect more to keep it interesting. I like my books meaty. I want the MC to have something vested. Makes him/her more well rounded and believable.

Having a personal stake in the situation is, I would sy, a requirement. Anyone needs a sound and solid reason to become involved in solving a crime.

Cops investigate many a crime without personal involvement-- they may or may not feel the need for justice. I'm sure sometimes it's just because it's their job.

A private investigator is hired to do a job. They may or may not feel any personal involvement.

But, in modern mystery, this is not enough of a stake, it seems. In the books I read, I never got the impression AT ALL that Holmes or Marlowe started the case with any personal investment. They were there because they were ask to be part of it. As they worked, they may develop some sort of feelings beyond that. At least that's what I got.

BUT, again, this is not the time period when either Holmes or Marlowe are being published. This a very different time. Today, it seems, readers want more reason to get involved than "I was asked to."

Either that, or like in some series (Evanovich) the case is almost secondary to the character's personal struggles. (*gag*)

I'm there for the solving of the mystery and don't often care who's narrating so long as they don't angst and whine and prove themselves too stupid to live. For me (odd as I am) the detective is secondary to the case. But since the reading public clearly tends to prefer character first-- angst and all-- then that's what agents/ editors will want. (Hence the lovely personal agent rejection of mine that actually detailed several ways-- all angsty, IMHO-- for my first novel to meet this personal stake problem that's "missing.")

MarkEsq said:

the man he was assigned to protect, and whom he doesn't much like, is now missing.

Click to expand...

I want to read it based on this alone.

Clair Dickson said:

Cops investigate many a crime without personal involvement-- they may or may not feel the need for justice. I'm sure sometimes it's just because it's their job.

A private investigator is hired to do a job. They may or may not feel any personal involvement.

But, in modern mystery, this is not enough of a stake, it seems. In the books I read, I never got the impression AT ALL that Holmes or Marlowe started the case with any personal investment. They were there because they were ask to be part of it. As they worked, they may develop some sort of feelings beyond that. At least that's what I got.

BUT, again, this is not the time period when either Holmes or Marlowe are being published. This a very different time. Today, it seems, readers want more reason to get involved than "I was asked to."

Either that, or like in some series (Evanovich) the case is almost secondary to the character's personal struggles. (*gag*)

I'm there for the solving of the mystery and don't often care who's narrating so long as they don't angst and whine and prove themselves too stupid to live. For me (odd as I am) the detective is secondary to the case. But since the reading public clearly tends to prefer character first-- angst and all-- then that's what agents/ editors will want. (Hence the lovely personal agent rejection of mine that actually detailed several ways-- all angsty, IMHO-- for my first novel to meet this personal stake problem that's "missing.")

Click to expand...

Cops, just like private investigators, get paid, which gives them a reson to be invoved. It's a cops job to be involved, and he has no choice unless he wants to lose that job. Holmes wanted the intellectual challenge, but he got paid, too. And occasionally kept a very valuable trophy from a case.

Characters, paricularly lead characters, always need a sound motivation for what they do, or they'll come across as unrealistic, and probably boring.

I daresay pretty much everyone prefers character first. Always have, always will. Which doesn't mean there has to be any angst, but reality, definitely.

But readers remember characters long after they forget everything but the bare bones of the plot.

Sounds like your MC has the right stuff MarkEsq.