Why do these characters tend to be fan favorites, even over the professed protagonist? It’s a question that’s bugged me for a while.

Also, this thread is for any discussion of supporting characters, common issues/pitfalls, things you think are cool, etc. etc.

I think in many books, the Hero (or Protagonist, if you prefer) is often a more generic character, especially in his or her thoughts and beliefs and convictions, and less quirky. That allows the reader to project themselves onto the Protagonist easier. The author feels no compulsion to make any of the supporting casts generic, and so they’re usually much more popular than the Protagonist.

I also suspect that a part of it is because the reader doesn’t know nearly as much about the supporting characters as they do the protagonist, which allows the reader to imagine all those unexplained details and make the person out to be as badass or awesome as they want.

I feel guilty derailing this thread already, or I should, but…

On what Rorschach said about main characters being generic. Do you all consider this a good thing? When I write, I have a collection of crazy people in my head that just come to me, and the MC is no more or less boring, bland, or featureless than any of the others. He’s just the one that gets to tell the story.

So in my NaNo the MC is a drunken, washed-out professional Socrates whose greatest joy in life is getting in fights. He’s a colorful dude, and his thoughts are his own. Is this not a normal thing? Or should I be paying any attention to this discrepancy?

I mean, I guess you don’t know what religion Harry Potter believed in, but I know I disagreed with many of the actions he took and with his basis for them. I dunno. I’m curious.

I think it’s got more to do with side characters being open to interpretation without feeling like they’re open to interpretation. If they’ve got enough personality to feel like their own people but enough blank space that fans can unconsciously tweak the unspoken details, they feel like this character is written for them.

Anyway, what I find really interesting are stories where fans love the main character yet hate the rest of the cast(loldexter).

I think as long as your MCs aren’t too boring/whiny/whatever, they won’t get all that outshined by the SCs.

Going on the HP-example: can you guess my 6 favorite characters from that verse?
In no particular order: Sirius, the twins, Harry, Ron, Hermione.
Half of those happen to be the MCs, and so what?
They’re well developed and complex people.

Also, remember that YMMV. One person may regard a certain MC to be awesomesauce, while another thinks Designated Protagonist Syndrome.
A very polarising example of this would be Lost: fans generally agreed that Sawyer was cool, Kate was a Sue and an artificial Love Triangle Making Thing… and Jack? He fell somewhere between “kinda okay guy” and “can’t stand that whiny loser”.

...Or maybe they didn’t generally agree.
See what I mean?

in other words, just insight into who they are, you’ve taken away most of the mystery.

According to cracked, this is the exact same reason why Hollywood should stop making prequels. Take Star Wars, for a very good/bad example: it was really fun for previous generations to picture Darth Vader as a good guy with a bit of darkness in him, a Jedi who always tried to do the right thing until Palpatine corrupted him and lured him to the Cookie Sith Side… but was it fun to see Anikin whining about how he hates sand and how he’s in love with Padme because he’s sick and masochistic whoops sorry wrong classic romance ?
NO.

That’s why I like multiple POVs. It means you can step outside the other characters whose points of view you’re writing from, and then see the cool stuff they do, whilst still knowing where they’re coming from.

Same here.

It’s like reading about Tonks changing her face to amuse Ginny and whoever else in Order of the Phoenix. Funny to watch, but it wouldn’t be so awesome if it was told from her pov.

I know what you mean, but I think this example is closer to “tiny background detail” than “supporting characters”.

That’s why I like multiple POVs. It means you can step outside the other characters whose points of view you’re writing from, and then see the cool stuff they do, whilst still knowing where they’re coming from.

Me too. However, I don’t think that this approach works for every book.

My phone is getting on my nerves

Everyone may think and sound exactly the same…

Yes, this is absolutely true. Apparently, Rick Riordan’s new series has multiple PoVs, but it’s not working as well as in the first series because Percy’s voice was so distinctive, and none of the other voices had that.

Is there a thread specific to building characters and people, or should I ask on this one?

We have multiple threads scattered all over the place on characters. But yes, PoV=Point of View.

I’d just like to go off topic and say that I think George R. R. Martin does an excellent job of handling literally dozens of different PoVs at once. Every character is unique and has their own interesting personalities. They’re constantly fighting and struggling against each other but Martin never brands anyone as “the good/bad guy” because they all have their own illegitimate goals and agendas.

Back on topic, one thing that really annoys me is when the protagonist is so flat and one dimensional that the writer will throw in supporting characters at random to make the main character look more impressive. A good supporting character should have the potential to be the protagonist of the story themselves.

(While they are called “supporting characters” I believe that the protagonist shouldn’t rely on supporting characters to make him who he is.)

flawless characterization

wrong

books still great though

darkstar

Whatever promise that was, I appreciate you remembering. That means a lot.

It was the promise to be nice to sansa. And Inky, I know, it’s so very heart-breaking. passes embroidered handkerchief.

darkstar still suks

Sansa has a point.

...I have no Idea what you’re talking about…

talkn bout darkstar

he suks

nope, he was in two at least

so badass he ant murccder at little girl

darkstar

darkstar

The answer to basically everything.

so darkstar is a character in…a book/series by George R. R. Martin…?

Yes, who is darkstar?

Inky- the real test is italics.

Ahem. Mkay.

Metoo, but I didn’t want to risk Puppet’s wrath.

I think the biggest teller if they’re a good character or not is whether they’d hold up in a ‘spinoff’ of their own, or whether they’re just fodder, of comic relief.

I can't say I like protagonists that are such blank slates. To me, it really smacks too much of projectionism (I may have just invented that term) and sacrifices too much insight for the sake of giving the reader a personal insert. It can be done well, but it's usually the project of author habitation - first person need not apply. Although, sometimes, there are characters that are naturally set as the "straight man". Doesn't seem to happen very often, however.

That's one reason I'm such a big fan of ensembles. Rather than painting your story all black with a red central character, or vice versa, you can apply several different colors and see how they mix/clash/whatever.

Interesting that you would say that, Rocky. See, that Red Letter Media guy said that one of the things that bothered him about SW:TPM was that there was no clear single main protagonist.
But that might just be because no character was decently developed in that movie.

I was thinking that meself.
But yeah, the problem with that movie’s cast really was that none of the characters were identifiable. They just kept blinking by, getting relegated to different background spots. No one character had a completely filled arc, did you notice? You saw the beginnings of some people’s and the ends of others’. That was what really made it annoyingly noticeable, I think. It can be done, and done well coughsevensamuraicough

I was thinking that meself

Great minds.

You could probably argue the story was hers.

Not Obi-Wan?

Furthermore, Obi-Wan is hiding on the ship for all of Tatooine. The Red Letter Media had an interesting thought- what if Qui Gon was gone and Obi Wan filled the role of Qui and Obi? I know Lucas wanted to show that Kenobi was young and impetouous, but I wonder if that could have been handled in a story arc without Qui there. (That and find Anakin older- that would've solved a lot acting problems/ kiddy feel.)

But the role of Qui and Obi seem to overlap so much that between the two, they aren't left with much.

The problem with the queen being the protagonist is it never really is from her perspective as the issue of her queenship is hidden from the audience which is a bad thing to do with PoV character. (Oh all along that character was the queen? Why didn't that come up ever?)

I admit, those are very valid points.

But…

...then no Liam Neeson :( And he, frankly, was my only real motivation to sit through Phantom Menace.

Image fixed.

And the explosions? Bad, the new Gaga video had better explosions.

If I were rewriting the prequels, Quo-Gon would definitely be in there somewhere. He was a clear benefit to the film. Level-headed, very wise, and slightly, quietly rebellious against the Order. Unless I'm mistaken, he was the first to discover the ability to manifest as a Force ghost (even though we never saw it).

_The Phantom Menace_ gets quite a lot of flak, much of it rightfully so. But of the prequels, I think it stands as a stronger whole. The CGI, to me, seems more wholly integrated into the overall film. I didn't really feel any jarring inconsistencies like it did in the following two films. It also has a less saturated palette, which I think lends to a more realistic visual acumen. It has Darth Maul, a character I felt was truly capable of dangerous deeds, yet one that wasn't undercooked or mishandled (coughGrievouscough). Really wish he'd lived up until the third prequel. The Gungans, for all their annoying traits, felt unique, especially in terms of their _phenomenal_ submarine city. And for excitement, I don't think anything else in the prequels really matched the pod race. Superb designs on the pods, the believably of the terrain, and the great sound design.

But since this is a thread of supporting characters, I'd like to submit one I thought was very well done along the fronts of character arc and acting: Palpatine.

but I think that supporting characters are interesting because they don’t have to adhere to the traditional hero’s path.

I’m reminded of Leah, for some reason. Maybe because she was the only one who didn’t want to go along with what Bella wanted.

This isn’t at all along the lines of SWQ’s point, but that was the first thing that came to my mind. Back on topic: I agree. The traditional hero kind of has this checklist to fulfil. The supporting characters aren’t held to similar standards as the protaganist. The hero can have his selfish or any other negative moments sometimes, but the writer is less likely to emphasize his faults than with the other characters.

More freedom can be taken with the darker side of human nature with them. Not that this doesn’t happen with the MC as well, but in cases where a certain writer wants the hero to shine out as good and pure, they might hold back on those moments in which we may see the MC being negative. Like displaying jealousy or anger. Sure we’ll have some instances, but not all that many in comparison to the other characters. I have a feeling I could have put this more succinctly…

It also has a less saturated palette, which I think lends to a more realistic visual acumen

Can’t help but think of RLM’s review.

All they care about is
SHOVING
MORE
SHIT
into
EVERY
SINGLE
FRAME
of the movies!

I’m reminded of Leah, for some reason. Maybe because she was the only one who didn’t want to go along with what Bella wanted.

Sen, dear – have you read das mervin’s sporks yet? If not, you should.
That woman is a huge fan of Leah and she makes some incredibly valid points about damn near everything Twilight Saga-related.

The hero can have his selfish or any other negative moments sometimes, but the writer is less likely to emphasize his faults than with the other characters

Not necessarily. A lot of stories have the MC causing himself/herself, as well as other folks, some serious shit precisely because of their faults.
Let me take a The Good Wife-episode I recently saw as an example. That series is really growing on me, so if you don’t like it of whatever, I’m sorry
Also, spoolerses. You’ve been warned:

but in cases where a certain writer wants the hero to shine out as good and pure, they might hold back on those moments in which we may see the MC being negative

Good hero? Awesome.
Pure hero? Thanks, but no thanks.
Holding back negativeness? Not on my watch.

That’s where Darth Maul, or even Dooku, would’ve been more appropriate.

Maul was badass and Dooku was Dracula/Saruman/Wonka Sr.
Nuff said. ;-)

Does anyone else constantly blend Saruman and Count Dooku together now? When I’m watching Star Wars I keep going “SARUMANNN! COME OUT!” and when I’m watching LoTR I go “Where’s the lightsaber and the Trade Federation?”.

why the hell are you watching star wars prequels

What? Prequels? I have no idea what you’re talking about, sansa.

Star Wars is just like the Matrix. They always talked about these really awesome other movies they’d make (prequels for Star Wars, sequels to The Matrix), but for some odd reason, they never ever ever got made. Very sad. Because clearly they would’ve been awesome.

I really wanted to like Revolutions, and the big centerpiece fight in Zion was pretty cool… but the overabundance of Idiot Balls being thrown around just made it unwatchable.

Here and there Smeyer did mess with her, but it never got serious.

I’m well aware that I did exaggerate. Just a little. Only a smidge. :D
It’s just that I was really liking her up until that one bit: “But I would do it Bella’s way. We’d both do it Bella’s way.”
But Bella’s way is the path of idiocy! D:< Usually, you know. I mean this circumstance with the child was different, of course. Delicate. I just couldn’t believe those words were uttered by Leah. It was just…wrong.
My respect for her lowered just a little, for at least a while, that’s all.

But yeah, she was still awesome.

@Sen – I see what you mean.

Just a little. Only a smidge. :D

Of course. ;-)

@Inky – true, to a point, but Blade was, in the words of cracked, “a dark and gritty superhero movie before dark and gritty superhero movies were cool”. The sequel was my personal favorite out of the 3, cause it took the principle of the bigger fish and ran with it. And its fight scenes were more… colorful, thanks to a bigger cast.

The third one sucked hard. Pretty much killed the franchise.

Either way, I’d take the first two Blades over Equilibrium any day of the week. Personal opinion, of course.

Well obviously. But “Gun Kata” was so hilariously dumb that it offers some entertainment value still, where the Matrix’s original interest has by now been absorbed into the cultural dialect and one is left only with the tired, grating existentialism, nihilism, and fatalism that show ever more painfully through the worn finish on each viewing.

Plus Blade was like Highlander only less 80’s Cheese and with cool gunfights in place of stupid swordfights. And it showed the nation later to fall under Twilight’s spell what you’re really supposed to do with vampires.

Shoot them.

Shoot them again.

Repeat.

if that was your first time i am rather surprised you never saw it before

That’s one reason I’m such a big fan of ensembles. Rather than painting your story all black with a red central character, or vice versa, you can apply several different colors and see how they mix/clash/whatever.

Ooh, yes!

Sounds promising, Klutor.

And tying it in even further to the conclusions already drawn here, Jack works so well as a character because the audience is never sure how much of what he says to believe or how much of it he believes himself. You never really can decide whether he’s planned it all out from day one or he’s just making it all up as he goes. Focusing too much on him would destroy that mystery about his character and remove a lot of the interest.

You’d find out, in other words, exactly what he was thinking, and that would make him boring. And that’s part of the problem with the sequels too – it seemed like he just kind of drifted into the first movie, and there was a lot of backstory to him that went unexplained. Delving too deeply into that was a mistake, as was devoting enough screentime that it became obvious he didn’t actually have a purpose – he just kept on drifting through all the movies.

Okay, third try to make this as clear as I can, because I find it interesting: