Problem with two main characters

[Mr. Funktastic]

Okay, so I've been working on my current WIP for quite a while now, and I just realized one of my original intentions has fallen through. The novel has two main characters: one is outgoing, energetic, and somewhat careless, and the other is timid, shy, and more prudent. They keep each other in check.

I originally planned on these two sharing the spotlight, but it seems that the more outgoing of the two has slithered his way into the MC position, leaving the other as more of a secondary character--something like his sidekick, I guess. When I noticed this, I tried to shift the focus a bit, but I just found it odd to do so. It just didn't feel right, you know?

Anyway, any suggestions about what I should do? Should I keep it as it is, and let Mr. Outgoing take the spotlight, or should I back up and make him share the stage?

[Veradin]

It seems only logical to me for the more outgoing character to hog the limelight since he/she is the one likely to get into scrapes and interesting situations. As far as what you should do, I say let your characters develop as you write—and if one character changes roles as a result then go with it. If you feel that the change hurts your work or the character(s), however, then you should rethink things a bit and see how you can shift the focus back to where it should be.

[kuatolives]

Have the timid one slit the others throat.

[Zolah]

Is the point of the story that these two characters change and develop through-out? Because if so then you need to give your shy and timid creation the chance to shine, while also giving an opportunity for the stronger, more reckless one to be quiet and introspective. For instance: they're both in a bank when it gets robbed. The quiet one finds him/herself in the position to grab one of the villain's guns and, much to his/her own surprise, does it, saving the day. The reckless character, on the other hand, got hit in the head during the first panic and watched the whole thing in a daze, paralysed with pain and fear. Now they both look back on the experience with the opposing feelings, and opposite to what their normal positions would be. Shy and Timid feels a rush of pride and confidence, Reckless and Brave feels confusion and shame.

I'm not saying you should use this exact example, but if your original story structure was based around the character's sharing the limelight, there must be some opportunity for them to share a tense scene, and swapping their roles would allow your under-used character to develop into someone who you might find it more interesting to write about.

[Amiton]

I think it stands to reason that a shy, quiet personality becomes a character that slides into the support role while a vocal and outgoing personality steps to the forefront. An outgoing personality makes it easier to come off as interesting, and that makes for a stronger character in most cases.

It's not a universal truth, but you've got a greater effort on your part to make a timid character a good lead. To balance that against an overshadowing co-lead is going to be tough and it's going to need to be thought out in advance (in my humble opinion).

Amiton.

[britwrit]

Humm. Without knowing anything about your book, maybe you could change it to first person with the timid character being the narrator. Like in The Great Gatsby, where Nick narrates and Gatsby is the oversize chracter.

Or, if you don't want to do anything so drastic, you could switch over a lot of scenes where they're told from the timid one's point-of-view? ("Nick stood there, aghast. First Gatsby rolls up in his great big circus wagon of a car, then he jumps out and starts hitting on Daisy, his cousin. My goodness! He'd never think of doing anything like that.") That way the timid doesn't have to do much but they're still at the forefront of the narrative?

[Sage]

One of my novels has a brother-sister pair as the MCs. I kept my shy MC in focus in the story, so that his more outgoing sister is really a major supporting role. She hogs the limelight for a while, but when you get down to it, the story doesn't exist without him. Yes, this means that when asked for one MC, I'll say it's him, but they're pretty evenly matched, & I prefer to think of them both as MCs.

Then again, as others have suggested, part of his character development is to overcome his dependence on his sister & become more independent in general. Whereas she occasionally finds herself helpless to overcome the situations she is put in, he feels like he is, but often finds that he is not actually as helpless as he thought.

[Oddsocks]

I agree with Britwit - using perspective, either first person or third person limited, with the shy character as the perspective one for most of the time, might enable the outgoing character to be as outgoing as they like while still allowing the shy character to be as important.

[JanDarby]

Which character changes the most over the course of the story? That should be the protagonist, and the other is either a secondary character or the antagonist.

Most stories really belong to one person -- the story is the key event in his/her life, and he/she is propelling the action in the story. Can anyone think of books where that's not true? (There's ensemble television, but that's a whole different ball of wax, and if you looked at each episode as a single book in a series, you'd probably identify one main character for the duration of that episode, even though the main character might be different from episode to episode.)

Even in all the quest stories I can think of, where there's something of an ensemble, there's really one main character. In romance, it might be said that both the hero and heroine are main characters, but I suspect you'll usually find that one of them changes more than the other, and has more POV time, etc., and if you really had to decide, you'd find one of them more primary than the other, in that one changes more or has higher stakes.

So, can anyone think of any well-known book examples with more than one protagonist?

JD

[ChaosTitan]

So, can anyone think of any well-known book examples with more than one protagonist?

JD

I see these titles as ensemble novels without a clear single protagonist, so I'll toss them out for debate:

North and South, by John Jakes
IT, by Stephen King

[TwentyFour]

I did the same, you should read the threads about how the sidekick becomes a main character and you will understand many novels turn this way...

[UrsusMinor]

So, can anyone think of any well-known book examples with more than one protagonist?

Yes, many.

One of the best examples is the Aubrey-Maturin series, by Patrick O'Brian, which the NY Times called "the best historical novels ever written."

George R.R. Martin's "A Game of Thrones" has at least five protagonists, perhaps more. John Gardner's "October Light" has two. Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying" arguably has fifteen.

People are fond of throwing around the "whoever is changed most by the story" distinction, but this is a piece of purely academic interest. This would make John Watson, MD, the protagonist of the Sherlock Holmes stories--since Holmes never really changes.

And, although it isn't a book, the screenplay for "Broadcast News" has three protagonists...and the whole point of the movie is that none of them really ever change. It opens with them as children, and at the end we have the three same characters.

The only rule is "don't bore your reader."

(And John O'Hara deliberately broke even that rule, inserting short sections of dull action at moments of great tension with the intent of making the reader skim forward.)

[Mr. Funktastic]

Hrm... I'm pretty fond of your idea, Zolah, because I can easily rework a scene of that type so that the two have a slight switch of roles.

Thanks for the help, everybody.

[BruceJ]

The novel has two main characters: one is outgoing, energetic, and somewhat careless, and the other is timid, shy, and more prudent. They keep each other in check.

Sounds like a good plan going in, but maybe you tripped over the reality that life situations are rarely balanced. Not sure what your plan is, so my comment may be somewhere at least in short field, but it sounds like your story might be searching for friction.

[sfecphory]

Sounds to me like your story knows where it wants to go. To push it back in a certain direction sounds like an author's imposing despite the natural flow of the story. Personally I find that when I get away from the "theme" I started with its all for the best. Theme writing is usually pretty formulaic.

My only idea about bringing it back to where you want it would be this: Perhaps if the quiet character is the narrator, then she could be commenting on the wilder characters actions and be part of the story without having to "shine."

[JerseyGirl1962]

People are fond of throwing around the "whoever is changed most by the story" distinction, but this is a piece of purely academic interest. This would make John Watson, MD, the protagonist of the Sherlock Holmes stories--since Holmes never really changes.


That's a very good point, one I hadn't thought of until you wrote that. :) And I just remembered that the Stephanie Plum character never changes (well, maybe slightly) in all of those novels. And that's the way Janet Evanovich wants it; I sure don't want Stephanie to change too much if at all, because she's damned funny just the way she is.

~JerseyGirl

[Atlantis]

I'm writing a story with more then one main character. Its a generational story that begins from the perspective of the father then moves into his son's point of view. Its about the two of them trying to find each other. For the longest time, I didn't know which one was the main character, I just let my book evolve naturally. I realised recently that they are both the main character. For a while I thought I didn't have any main characters. I have alot of characters in my book, each one with their own sub plot that interconnects with the others to form a neat conclusion at the end. When you write about the Olympian Gods as I am, you tend to have a large cast ;) Let your book evolve the way it is meant too. As someone else mentioned, George R.R Martin's "A Game of Thrones" has over 15 main characters. There's no rule that says you need to have one or stay in that person's head the whole book either. Good luck!

[farfromfearless]

I have read many books where there are the same types of characters -- personality-wise any way -- and one of the best techniques that I have seen to ensure that both share the limelight to varying degrees is to develop the characters through external and internal dialog. You have one extrovert and one introvert. It is only natural that one steps into the lime light and the other stays in the shadows. If you want to keep with your current outline then find ways to use the introvert's internal dialog to further the main plot (I assume that because this character drives the plot somehow). Have her find the answers she needs from within herself and other rely on outside sources or even the introvert.

[Oliveman]

a timid character has a real chance to shine in the unexpected, while the outrageous character gets it all rolling, i think you've got a good setup ^_- heck, you could even have the characters learn something valueable from eachother, and even though they don't show it or talk about it, this change comes through at a memorable moment or an unexpected time

[J.S Greer]

I originally planned on these two sharing the spotlight, but it seems that the more outgoing of the two has slithered his way into the MC position, leaving the other as more of a secondary character--something like his sidekick, I guess. When I noticed this, I tried to shift the focus a bit, but I just found it odd to do so. It just didn't feel right, you know?

I guess thats the role of the quiet ones. Outgoing people always get the spotlight, whether deserved or not.


Anyway, any suggestions about what I should do? Should I keep it as it is, and let Mr. Outgoing take the spotlight, or should I back up and make him share the stage?


The spotlight within the story, or as a part of the story itself?

Id do a few solid POV's from the qquiet one; the reader can be endeared to someone, even if the other characters in the book arent as taken by them as they are with the outgoing one.

[PeeDee]

John Lennon and I say that you should just let it be. Let it develop as it likes.

For one thing, forcing a character into the limelight when he's quiet is going to make him, you,a nd the reader uncomfortable. For another thing, just because he's a secondary character doesn't mean he's not important. If he's itneresting enough, readers will still find him and appreciate him.

[Bufty]

Hi, Funtastik,

If you are talking about using the POV of both characters, my only observation is that it isn't necessary to use two POV's in order to show that both characters have changed over the story. On top of which, it's easier in that scenario, I think, to leave the reader in one POV to avoid a feeling of schizophrenia.