posted
I must confess that as I write my novel, I often come here to vent my frustration. I apologise for submitting you to my temper tantrums. My question is this, do you feel the protagonist should always be mentioned in the first chapter (or early in the book). Do not respond with, "there are no rules in writing" because what I am actually looking for is what you see as possible advantages and disadvantages of where you introduce your protagonist.
Before I started writing prose I wrote plays for performance & I've switched to prose because I hate the process of putting on a play there is too much uncertainty. In my plays I would often introduce the hero in around the third act so that the audience would already have an attitude towards the protagonist when he/she is first seen. I could then either show their impression was true, or that quite the opposite is true.
I thought to do the same thing in my novel in progress in which the protagonist is a murderess who just happens to be dead. I began the tale in the POV of one of her victims, but now my first critics of the work in progress say that they became too interested in what is tp become of the first victim (who is now a ghost) and so are irritated with the switch in emphasis. What are your views?
posted
The current school of thought says to introduce your main character in the first chapter. I've never tried it any other way, and the truth of it, I think 99% of any modern novel you pick up today will start with the main character.
You want your story to start out strong, and also very honest. A reader should understand by page 3 or 4 what this story is going to be about. Don't keep them in suspense at first, they'll put the book down.
If you want to start out with what others thing about the character, maybe you can do that in the prologue. Prologue's can start without the main character. If you want to continue it into the first chapter, I would suggest entering the main character at least by the end of the first.
Think, often the detective tories start with with a big clue, a scene between two or three of the important suspects and the private eye isn't around, but isn't he always there right after that, chewing gum in his office?
I'm not sure, you know. Let's say that you start chapter one with two or three people, normally the reader would be watching the view point character closely, already assuming he/she's important. But maybe if you make sure that all the talk is about the real main character, you could beat it into the reader's head that the important person hasn't arrived yet.
I'll also say, don't rely on what other characters say to paint a picture of who the main characters really are. That's not the best way, because then you will have to address early on if the view point is unreliable or reliable. My favorite example of painting a character through another character's words is Duke Guy du Bas, of the Magician series. He is constantly bad mouthed through the whole of three books, never has a scene once, until the end of the third book, and then the reader sees that the things people said about him where not true, because all the view points had bias against him. That's one of the many reasons what others say about your character is not the best way to go about the charactization process.
My warning is, try it, but don't hold off too long with introducing the main. Don't make it into a gimick like the way Duke Guy was (and he wasn't even that important in the story, but then Magician wasn't exactly well written stuff). Post your prologue and first chapter here on hatrack, and we'll give you our impressions.
posted
Something you might want to consider in all of this is that it is possible to have three important characters who are separate from each other. (Orson Scott Card talks about this in the "Story Construction" section in his book HOW TO WRITE SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY.)
You can have one person be the point-of-view character, another person be the main character, and yet another be the protagonist.
My favorite example of this is the Sherlock Holmes stories. Watson is the point-of-view character, the client is the protagonist (the one most directly affected by the events in the story), and Holmes is the main character (the one who is the prime mover in the story).
(In another possible twist on this, the antagonist can be the main character, and in such stories the protagonist might be reacting to what the antagonist does through most of the story and then finally stands up and acts, thereby defeating the antagonist.)
Anyway, when you introduce any character into a story should be determined by two things: what you are trying to accomplish in the story, and how you want the readers to experience the story.
You have to consider the tendency of modern readers to identify with the point-of-view character, and if that character is not the one you want them to identify with, you may have to change your point-of-view to another character.
Citing another author, Damon Knight, prolific science fiction author and also the author of CREATING SHORT FICTION, you should start the story when the story starts (when things relevant to the story start happening). To extrapolate from that, you should introduce the protagonist (or the main character, whether they are the same or different) when that character is relevant to the story, to what is happening.
The characters you show at the beginning of the story are usually expected by the readers to be important to the story, and if they aren't, you need to be aware of that and be sure that you know how to get the readers to accept your messing with their expectations.
One other example: Michael Swanwick's STATIONS OF THE TIDE has as its point-of-view character an individual he refers to as "the bureaucrat"--we never learn his name. The "main character" is an individual that the bureaucrat is seeking, and we only actually meet that person near the end of the book.
You might want to read that book and at least see how Swanwick did it. (It was a Nebula winner, if I remember correctly--if not, it was on the final ballot.)
posted
Not that I can claim success, but I think it is interesting to have the hero come into the story when there's something heroic for him/her to accomplish. In the case of multiple central characters, that's a lot easier to accomplish. The doings of one central character carry the story to a point where the next central character must come into play. As for THE hero, I don't write that way usually. I have many potential heros and usually one main villain (or a race of villains who aren't particularly individualized). And they enter the story when it is time to explain who has been perpetrating all this unpleasantness.
posted
I usually like to do just the opposite, have only one hero and everyone else is a villain (or enemy at least).
Seriously, I have one POV character and everyone else is hindering that character in some way, either directly (like trying to kill him) or indirectly (like withholding information or imposing restraints that limit the central character).
posted
It really depends on how important your "hero" is. Some times the hero isn't the most important part of the book, though usually he/she is. Personally I've tinckered with trying to write something in which the main character isn't the reason to read it. The story centers around him, its from a 3rd person limited, but the real depth comes from the events and the supporting characters. Things like that, since they aren't dependent of the main character, can get away without having the main character there for some time.
However I should mention that not many people have liked my attempts. Probably its just me, but maybe not.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
