[Sojourn]

If you were to strip a common novel down to its bare bones, essentially it is a tale of a single person's exploits. If you avoided being too technical or pedantic, you would somehow notice that despite the abundance (or lack) of supporting characters in the story, they are merely that; 'supporting' characters. They appear to serve a supplementary or complimentary role, whether to support the main character, or further the story's plot, or both. If someone were to ask you "Who is this story about?", chances are you'd reply with ONE name, the main character's. The axis of the wheel. Examples abound. I won't mention any, but invite you to just conjure up a few of your own in your mind.

Yet, some stories break this mold. Most basically, if someone were to ask you "Who is this story about?", you'd hesitate to answer, because it's not about any one character. Put simply, you just don't know. Oh, sure you know what the story's about and who are the major players in it, but you can't really say with certainty that it's about this person, because it's just as much about that person, and him, and her...

One example I will mention for the above is Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. Personally, I cannot answer the question put forth before, because there are several main characters. Even the chapter titles are named after the character the chapter is centred upon (I suppose we could count up the names and declare the most mentioned name THE main character, but we won't go there http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif ). Perhaps you might know some stories written like this.

I invite your most respected thoughts and comments on this subject.

[Aylis]

Good topic. Well, since my mind is mostly on LotR right now (I'm rereading LotR before the movie comes out) I would say that this book goes deep into Sam, though it may seem as if Frodo was the main character. Then again, there is more than one story going on, you could say there are many main characters. However, Sam is the only one who's character is most clear to me. Since the main character of LotR is debatable, I suppose LotR would break the mold.

In contrast, I am also reading Dracula at the moment. The book isn't really about Dracula or any of the characters, or at least not about the character specifically. I don't know any more about any character's true personality than Dracula is evil or the good guys are scared. So, in a way, this book also fits the mold.

Granted, this book is relatively interesting, but I find books like LotR for more interesting because your much closer to the characters.

[Aylis]

Whether the book centers on one or more characters does not concern me much. It's all in the way the story is told and, obviously, whether or not the story is interesting enough to be told.

[estranghero]

Hmmm, can't think of books that have multiple character off the top of my head. Though I always thought of Jon Snow as the lead character of ASOIAF, even with Martin's constant shift of viewpoints.

Does quest companion stories count like Dragonlance?

Still, your topic was something close to my heart because of an idea that I came up with, i.e. single hero stories who are supposed to be the prophesied or 'chosen' one. But have you ever thought of a prophesy that involves two 'chosen' ones? Think of the implications... http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Bardos]

I REALLY like stories where you can't decide (sic) who is the hero. (In fact most of the time these are also the kind of stories I like to write about. When I try to write about one hero, I usually think it's crap, later http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif ) It's more realistic, imho, for in "reality" there usually is not ONE wo/man who solves the situation. Except if you're refering to a mystery story, or something like that, with small-scale events; but in fantasy most of the time events are large-scale and world-shaking.
Anyway. Jordan starts with one hero, later disides it's boring that way, and shifts to many; that's why bks 2, 3 are so good.
The Dragonlance Chronicles is a perfect example of not-One-Hero-story. And "A Song of Ice and Fire" also. Perhaps that's why they are my favourities. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Louis]

*
Minor aSoIaF spoilers
*

I have to say, I think that Frodo is definitely the main character of LotR and very much supposed to be so.

As for aSoIaF.. So far he has done a pretty good job of spreading the action over a lot of people and a lot of stories and so making there be several 'main' characters. The thing is though that I can't see there being anyway he can keep that up. The way the story is set up is so that the continent cannot go back to being 7 or however many it was different countries again. There has to be one King in the end, or one Queen I guess. I don't think that he can resist finishing it off with some variation of a cliche, despite his own best efforts. My money is on Bran. Martin has begun to develop patterns due to his very determination to avoid them. I think the fact that Bran has always been so relatively low key in the grand scale, and the amount he gets protected by everyone points to him being the one to step up and the end and 'surprise' everyone by taking over the whole place.

If nothing else, he's not directly involved in the wars, he's already been crippled and half killed once and he's hiding so he has a decent chance of actually surviving through the books. Plus, there are so many damn Starks that they're bound to end up winning..

Louis

[Rob B]

I would say that James Barclay's Chronicles of the Raven doesn't have a central character, though the closest may be Hirad.

If anything the group THE RAVEN is the central character.

[Eventine]

ASOIAF Spoilers

In response to Louis:

Why does there have to be one kingdom? So everyone can live happily ever after?

And a note about Bran - I find it very unlikely that Bran would ever be crowned - he will not be able to father children, therefore causing trouble a generation later.

.
.
.
End Spoliers and back on topic


As far as having a central character (or series of them) as opposed to a group, I think it has to do with how we as people can relate to the character. It is easy for to put ourselves in the shoes of one character, and decide what you would do in their situation.
It's not so easy to do that for a group however. Simply because of the dynamic crreated by having different characters of different backgrounds - I know what I am thinking right now, but working out why the rest of the people in this building act the way they do is completely beyond my mental capacity.

[jbcohen]

Is there anything wrong with having a single main character?

Does the fact that a particular character exists in a supporting role make the story any less enjoyable?

Is there a maximum to the number of supporting characters that a novel can have?

Dragon Lance comes to mind as one of the multiple character type of which is being spoken of. Without all of the characters present the story has a tendency to fizzile out and go away. At first one things that Caramon and Raistlin are the main caracters but without Goldmoon and Riverwind to get things moving there is not much story there. Once one reads more of the novels one realizes that some of the supporting characters are not so supporting and can be main characters in their own right.

Also there are novels that make some of the supporting characters into main characters.

[Bardos]

<<Is there a maximum to the number of supporting characters that a novel can have?>>

None whatsoever! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

<<Also there are novels that make some of the supporting characters into main characters.>>

That's great when it's done.


Nowadays, we are used to "ready, half-chewed-for-us food". We want to have the author tell us, "Hey, guys! This --this one here, you see?-- is the main character of the story." That, I have to say, has large drawbacks.
(1) It's not challenging at all, You know, more or less, in who to invest in, who will win probably, who is the good guy. If it wasn't decided for you, you'd have to decide for yourselve, searching amongst the characters, think who is wrong and who is right, be confused a bit, use your brain. (That's why I was talking about "mindless masses" in the other thread. They eat the half chewed food.)
(2) If I like the "hero/main character" of the story, say ok! But what happens if I hate the guy/gal and I'm stuck with him/her for the next 400+ pages?? If it wasn't decided for me, I would have been able to choose "my own champion" amongst the various characters. Now isn't that fun and challenging?

Hail to Margaret Weis / Tracy Hickman, and Martin, who gives us a lot of characters to choose from.

It's like beting a not-so-safe bet. Will My Champion triumph, or will be crushed?
A game?
Why not?...