Let's talk about.....

[lilsneak]

Main characters

Well, me and my friends were discussing about main characters from the shows and books that we love/hate and I was surprised by how much they disliked some characters. The main problem is they are often too whiny, too weak, too Mary Sue-ish [or Anti-Maru Sueish], too emotionless, too emo, too lovestruck.....you get the picture.
So, bbs, tell me, what do you think a main character should be like?

Comments

[rebelliouswhitequeen]

A main character, I think, should be really complex, with many sides to his/her personality and be realistic in that he/she has several flaws that will either cause he/she to grow as a person or hold him/her back from growing.

[tangledaxon]

Realistic enough to be believable, but extraordinary in some way, all the same. Why do we care what happens to them? So what if they're in dire circumstances... so what. Make me care!

Main characters

[paganpaul]

A main character should be complex. I also believe that this should be introduced step by step, as a development. Make the character grow and become believable.

[cesy]

Not sparkling ;)

[dameboudicca]

Lol! I agree!

[vanessabrooks]

Thirded!

[meoryn]

Essentially, the character should have grown in some way by the end of a story. There should be both srengths and weaknesses but I also think the main character should in some way be someone a reader can relate to even if it's something small. That builds a connection with the reader and helps them to care what happens to the character.

if a character is too extraordinary, there is nothing there for me to grasp; they become "too good to be true" thus they become a distant, unattainable representation that disconnects me instantly as a reader from the character. I no longer believe the character to be real and as a result, I don't care what happens to them.

[ilthit]

This!

Except I'd say "changed" instead of "grown"; grown works most of the time but I also like the cold shower ending of character deterioration, surprise revelations about characters you thought you knew etc. But I guess you have to be really good to write that. Mostly "grown" is safer!

There's this whole theory about how the main character should be in some way an empty vessel for the reader to project themselves onto, but I don't believe it for a second. They have to be interesting. (Perfect is not interesting, either.) They have to feel like people you might know. How are you supposed to identify with or understand an empty vessel?

[seidskratti]

I found an old essay by SF writer and editor Eric Flint the other day which talks about the character development side a bit and simplifies it down pretty well, and I'll agree that in my experience, it's what makes a lot of novels as compelling as they are. To paraphrase, Flint says that a good novel has two things: an objective conflict and a character or characters who, in resolving the conflict, undergo some basic change. In a GOOD novel, this change is directly related to how they deal with the problem. In other words, a good main character solves their own problems through solving the bigger problem.

I think everyone likes complex, fully realized characters. I personally also like people with big obstacles and handicaps who nonetheless overcome them. I like awesome people with little or no power more than I like normal people with awesome powers. I also like people who think outside the box.

My favorite protagonist ever is Miles Vorkosigan from Lois McMaster Bujold's SF books. Hands down. Twisty little man with a twisty little (brilliant) mind. <3

[ilthit]

Forward momentum!

[mordantmind]

agreeing with several comments above. the character needs to be realistic, with good and bad points, and we need to be able to relate to her and feel sympathy. either the character, or the situation in which she finds herself, should be extraordinary (therefore interesting).

this may only be important to me, but-- the character's voice should be as true as possible. nobody really talks like a Joss Whedon character. at best, real humans only have occasional flashes of wit and snappy banter; some have more than others, but no one is "on" 100% of the time.

[dameboudicca]

I like to experiment with different kinds of main characters. Some are just like someone you could meet anywhere, complex and believable, and all that. But sometimes it can be interesting to take someone who seems to be perfect and reconstruct that character, see what makes them tick, see how a perfect character would act in a non-perfect environment (and in my experience, it almost always means I end up with a psychopath on my hands - but that can be interesting to write about too).

The main thing to me is that character and story fit - and it's very different from story to story, it needs careful adjusting and tuning.

Main Characters

[battery]

Personally my main character has always been the person who has either the deepest emotions, is the most interesting, or who the story is based around (regardless of their other personality defects).

[sweet_sparrow]

A person. (i.e. a realistic depiction of a sentient being within the societal confines of the story whom the reader can understand and/or sympathise with.)

But then I'm a character-driven person. If that's how a character is, that's how the character is. My job is to portray them as honestly and clearly as I can. Good and bad sides. As long as I do that job well, it's good. Not everyone is going to think the same things about my(/someone else's) characters. What's endearing to one reader may grate another immensely. What's 'too emotionless' to one reader might make perfect sense in the context to another. Those are reactions that are beyond my control as a writer (unless, of course, I turn into an all-powerful, mind-controlling deity at some point in my life) and not something I think writers should try to cater towards. It's impossible.

What isn't impossible is showing the reader the characters as they are. You'll not win every reader over, but you never will anyway. Even if you put down your characters are carefully and realistically as you can, you'll still run into readers who don't connect to the work and dislike the characters (or other aspects, but focus...) *holds up hands helplessly* So I'm straying a little from the original phrasing of the question. Characters (be the protagonists, secondary or tertiary characters) need to be people for me. They can be as whiny as they want after that. I'll probably still want to strangle them for having grating personalities, but as long as they're people I'll live. (Unless of course the story has more problems than protagonist characterisation, but that's outside the scope of the question. ^-~)