Main characters are almost always dull

[Noonling]

Main characters are nearly always the most boring, tedious characters in a novel. Even in novels I love, the main character rarely feels more than either a reader surrogate or an "[flaw] with a heart of gold". No, throwing in some alcoholism doesn't make for a well-rounded character. And yet in those same novels side characters can be great, so its not like the writer can't do characters.

I've been reading Kraken by China Mieville - not a particularly great novel by him, but it has some nice ideas and some side characters have a bit of flair (though not much). But I'm 50% of the way through and I don't think the main character has made a single important decision. He is, thus far, purely a tag-along character - pushed through the world by people or the plot while not doing anything relevant himself. I can't say a single thing about his character - I can't even call him kind, or inquisitive, he's pretty much a non-entity.

I really enjoyed The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, but the main character can be summed up as: arrogant, but brilliant at everything (literally everything). Harry Potter - no one's favourite character is Harry. It could just be a fantasy problem (and thus its been grating on me more recently just because I've been reading more fantasy) but even when I think of other books, the characters aren't memorable.

Off the top of my head, the only interesting main character of any book that I can think of is Kinbote in Pale Fire.

Maybe I'm just too fussy? I guess not every book can have a weird obsessive in it, and more mundane people make up 90% of reality anyway. Plenty of books are great without having a memorable main character, and maybe sometimes it would actually detract from the story or the setting if you had someone being too...weird.

Thoughts?

[popcorn]

One example of a bland protagonist that sticks in my mind as working really well is The Secret History. I don't even remember his name, but as the story is about him joining this group of fascinating characters, his blandness really helped create the feeling that you, the reader, were in his shoes. He's kind of a blank slate you can just project yourself onto.

[Mister Six]

I dunno, plenty of novels I've read have great protagonists. Terry Pratchett's Discworld books are crammed with them, for example. Every Elmore Leonard book I've ever read has had a compelling and proactive protagonist too.

That said, I'm reading IT again for the first time in ages, and Bill Denborough is a pretty tedious fellow. Comes across as a total author stand-in - a writer who made loads of money and has a hot wife, and is respected by all his mates for his natural leadership abilities. It's having him be a horror author that really grates though. Seems positively shameless to have him be the one that everybody looks up to. King should have given the writing job to one of his more flawed characters.

[purlieu]

Trainspotting is obviously from the perspective of various characters, but they're all bloody great.

[Noonling]

Trainspotting is obviously from the perspective of various characters, but they're all bloody great.

I will add that most books which have several different perspectives end up having great characters. Its like the author feels free to experiment more, as if the reader doesn't like one of the characters they'll still end up liking another one.

[Bhazor]

I'd say it depends on the genre. Sci fi and fantasy tend to have reader surrogates because you need some excuse to have the setting, which is the main focus, explained to you through the character. Which leads to fun bits where a character who has lived in the saturn conclave his entire life has never wondered about the twenty foot tall robots wandering about or ever been curious about "THE RESIST" posters that keep appearing on his front door.

By contrast horror, or at least good horror, seems to have more care in their main characters because its all about what is happening inside the character's head and how they're terrified about the prong clown ever since they were a little child.

Romance tends to depend on whether its a romance or a (fisting gesture) romance. The former can have interesting characters because the characters are the focus of the story. While with (fisting gesture) romance its all about embodying the character. And literally getting in the body of character.

Sports books are shit.

Anything historical both recent and ancient tend to have inbuilt interesting characters. Kudos to any writer who could make Julius Ceasar or Napoleon boring for example. Though these books are often written from the perspective of a mundane ahistorical character in order to act like a sight seeing tourist as you get to hang around with all these historical characters.

Thrillers again are a mixed bag depending on where the writer's focus is. Whether its psychological or procedural. Or what have you.

[greenman]

I felt Book of the New Sun was interesting in providing a fantasy character who in many respects seemed like a reader surrogate but arguably moreso though his own narration of the story minimalizing or normalising an obviously less relatable side.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Join the Svejk thread.

[nedthemumbler]

Yossarian?

[Sebastian Cobb]

Neal Stevenson knew what he was doing when he called the main character 'Hiro Protagonist'.

[gilbertharding]

Is Nicholas Jenkins 'the main character' of A Dance to the Music of Time? Or is that Widmerpool?

[Kishi the Bad Lampshade]

I'm not big enough in the new literature world to know if this is a trend, but there's been a few books with unusual female protagonists recently e.g. Convenience Store Woman, Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine, which I've enjoyed a lot.

[Catalogue Trousers]

That said, I'm reading IT again for the first time in ages, and Bill Denborough is a pretty tedious fellow. Comes across as a total author stand-in - a writer who made loads of money and has a hot wife, and is respected by all his mates for his natural leadership abilities. It's having him be a horror author that really grates though. Seems positively shameless to have him be the one that everybody looks up to. King should have given the writing job to one of his more flawed characters.

Indeed. From his college days onward, in a truly embarrassing sequence, the strawmen are just being set up for good ol' Bill to knock down.

King had a rash of novels around that time where the hero is an author - and did it before with Salem's Lot and the anti-hero approach in The Shining - but Paul Sheldon in Misery and Thad Beaumont in The Dark Half are both much more believable and likeable characters.

[Default to the negative]

I've been reading Kraken by China Mieville - not a particularly great novel by him, but it has some nice ideas and some side characters have a bit of flair (though not much). But I'm 50% of the way through and I don't think the main character has made a single important decision. He is, thus far, purely a tag-along character - pushed through the world by people or the plot while not doing anything relevant himself. I can't say a single thing about his character - I can't even call him kind, or inquisitive, he's pretty much a non-entity.

In Mieville's The Scar, I thought the protagonist Bellis Coldwine was the most interesting character because she is so stubbornly resistant to the situation she finds herself in. She rebels against it at every opportunity, with major consequences to the plot. You couldn't call her a non-entity.

I found her attitude quite understandable, but for some reason Mieville seems to hate the character and is determined to put her through ordeals designed to break her down.

[The Boston Crab]

Julien Sorel from The Red and The Black is one of the great protagonists of European literature. He's almost an anti-hero and yet almost an idol of mine. I never think about him but whenever I do, I realise how much more in parallel our lives have run.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

Patrick Bateman was quite a card.

[MojoJojo]

I really enjoyed The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, but the main character can be summed up as: arrogant, but brilliant at everything (literally everything).

I was thinking of that when I read the thread title. Tbf, you have to remember that Kvothe is telling the story and presumably embellishing his talents somewhat. Not that that solves the problem.

[Shaky]

Yossarian?

Really? He's comparatively sane but I wouldn't call him "dull" at all.