Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Protagonist question

This is topic Protagonist question in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000718

Posted by Alias (Member # 1645) on :

A project I am currently working on requires a kind of lengthy background before I can introduce the main protagonist and conflict in the story. I am told that both of those two things should be introduced, to some extent or another, as soon as possible.

The main conflict I can, but I cannot possibly introduce the main protagonist until after at least three (prologue-ish) chapters.

A lot of the this section of the book is centered around the POV of a man who will later be seen as a villain, I am affraid that this approach will cause the reader to foremost sympathize with my antagonist and not my protagonist.

Also I am violating the suggestion of introducing the protagonist immediately. I don't want to, but please trust me that there is no reasonable way to do it.

Should I leave it or keep trying to force something different?

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 1681) on :

quote:
I cannot possibly introduce the main protagonist until after at least three (prologue-ish) chapters.

Well, I know OSC discourages the use of prologues, but I think this is a situation where a prologue might be the way to go.

Since chaptering is essentially arbitrary (i.e., there are no hard and fast rules about how long a chapter can be or when a break of some sort must be a chapter break instead of some other sort of break) i see no reason why you couldn't combine those three chapters into one and call it a prologue.

By actually naming it a prologue, you change reader expectations for it. They will not assume that the main protagonist is in it. They will not assume that someone in it is the main protagonist. Instead, they will assume that you are setting things up for the main story -- which is exactly what you are doing.

Posted by Lord Darkstorm (Member # 1610) on :

I find it amazing that there are so many rules to writing that I find have been broken to some exctent by authors now. I read quite a bit and have seen many books that don't always follow the rules and still are great books.

Now I'm not sure new authors can get away with it, but it has worked for others. Even the 1st and 4th harry potter books did not start with harry. Ok, it was only one chapter in each, but it was not labled prolog and it still worked. RA Salvator has gotten away with some incredible POV switches in his books and I had no problem with the books or the switching.

Maybe I'm just a forgiving reader, but a good story should have some room for making it good, even if it doesn't conform completely.

Of course I'm not a published author and could be utterly wrong.

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 1681) on :

Any rule of writing can be broken if you're willing to pay the price.

One of the rules I break all the time in writing fiction is a grammar rule. I use sentence fragments. Some readers will be put off by that, because I'm not using proper grammar.

But I'm willing to pay that price, because I like the effect that using fragments has on the flow of the story.

Learn all you can about the rules of writing, because knowing the rules will help you to write better. But if it comes down to a choice between breaking your story so it will conform to a rule, or breaking a rule in order to tell the story you want to tell, there's no question you should do the latter.

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

This is a tricky situation. I fretted over a similiar situation not too long ago. Here's what I learned. The reader does not necessarily expect you to start with the main protagonist, but the character you start with must play an important role in the book. If he's your villain, then I bet he's important.

Hav eyou studied the MICE question the OSC poses in his books? It asks you what kind of story you're writing and suggests ways to begin each type of tale. If you haven't, I'd pick up the books.

Anyway, the first chapter of any book need to grab and hold the reader's attention. If your first chapter (I wouldn't call it a prologue if we have to read it, because we might skip it) is interesting and draws the reader in, stick with what you got. If it's pure background, then think about starting later and try to find ways to fill us in later. Unfortunately, this is a difficult question to answer yourself. If you can find some honest readers to tell you if the wall is more interesting than your first chapter, then you should ask them.

I just realized I didn't really have enough information to go on like this. I hope any of it helped. They're all good rules of thumb, but of course, like Eric said, all rules can be broken if you're willing to pay the price.

Posted by Goober (Member # 506) on :

I think a major point of this POV switching that we are missing out on here is the "sympathy" he talked about. If this guy is the villan, we dont have to care about him. But, a great villan we should care about, I think. Seeing inside his head could really help readers figure out what they hate about him. You dont have to "sympathize" with the POV character, is my point. Write him in such a way that he will end up being disliked, by the end of the Proglouge.

I really do not think starting on the Antagonist is breaking any "rule" I have ever heard of. Make us hate this guy, and when we see his rival, let us know that he is on our side, or could be eventually.

This could turn out interesting, as well.

Posted by Bene_Gesserit (Member # 1675) on :

Alias: I think you should ask yourself: who is your audience? If it is OSC and those who enjoy his work then lose the prologue. I know for a fact there are many interesting books with prologues and afterlogues and so on.