Is it possible to have no single main character?

[the_wolfs_howl]

I've recently been thinking about a story idea of mine, that I started writing for NaNoWriMo a couple years ago. My original intention was to write a story kind of like Wheel of Time or those huge epic fantasy series that have tons of characters, only each and every character in the main extended family my story focuses on is treated as though they are the main character of the story. I was doing that so everyone would be cool and have cool revelations and attributes, rather than reserving all of that for the main protagonist and/or your favorite side character (I realize you can still make your secondary characters interesting with a main protagonist).

But I've been wondering: Is it even possible to make a good story where you don't place more emphasis on any of the main cast of characters? I mean, in WoT for example, there's a bunch of main characters who get cool scenes and attributes, but it's clear from the get-go that Rand al'Thor is really the main character. Would it be possible to write something in that vein without putting so much emphasis on any particular character?

[Nate]

Final Fantasy 6 did it. While at times, certain characters were the focus, and there were characters that definitely got more screen time than the others, there was no single main character in the game.

If it's possible for video games, it's probably possible for books.

[Atria35]

I can definitely see so. Baccano! and Durarara!! don't have a single main character- they all pretty much are. Of course, the light novels haven't really been translated (officially) yet, so... But I have read other books like that, where there were a few mains instead of a single one (and one of the mains seemed like they'd been kicked off the wagon for a while, there, too!)

[Esoteric]

Short answer, yes. Just not common. And probably hard to sell to a publisher unless you're a New York Times bestseller.

Long answer, readers instinctively want to latch their primary interest onto somebody. Whoever they find most interesting. Within genre fiction you'll find few exceptions, but on the experimental fringe of literary endeavors, you'll find everything, like 2nd person novels. But experimental fringe styles don't usually appeal to the masses, so they aren't published mainstream.

Now you can write a 'book' where there are 10-20 characters and never return to the same viewpoint twice, but this would read more like a short story anthology. A short story anthology can be very enjoyable, but it becomes very hard to weave an actual plot through so many people like a baton relay race, because the reader will start to wonder, "Well, what was wrong with the other guy? I was just starting to get attached to him..." So the reader may start to feel jilted or restless and you will have a very hard time building 'reader momentum'. I think it's possible to pull it off, but you'd have to set it up very carefully and I don't think it would work for certain formats, such as thrillers which require a lot of momentum to generate deep emotional investment.

Perhaps if you wrote something thickly in omniscient viewpoint, using the narrator as the consistent personality who followed, for example, the struggles of a primitive tribe. The primitive tribe itself could be construed as the main character which is explored chapter by chapter through the individual members of the tribe. I could see this working well. It's a tough problem though.

EDIT: Durarara!! is a decent example. I watched the first anime arc. There were things I liked and disliked about its format. And for the most part, yes its serialized focus on different characters in each episode is an example of how to do this. Although I think it could be argued that as the story's everyman, Mikado serves as the primary/anchor character at least in the first arc.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

I can definitely see so. Baccano! and Durarara!! don't have a single main character- they all pretty much are. Of course, the light novels haven't really been translated (officially) yet, so... But I have read other books like that, where there were a few mains instead of a single one (and one of the mains seemed like they'd been kicked off the wagon for a while, there, too!)

Having read the first Baccano! light novel, I can confirm that it continues to not have a main character, though since the first is much more stand alone than the rest I'm pretty sure Firo was intended to be more of a main character than he is.

[Sapphire225]

Baccano! and Durarara!! are excellent examples of shows without a single main character and are awesome shows/novels I've heard. There is also And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie However, to do a book without a main character is slightly harder as you have to take the eyes of the main character.

The trick is, however, being able to present these characters and their storylines as equally as possible. As well as keep consistency as well as you can.

[Seto_Sora]

One word; Baccano!

SDG

[LadyRushia]

It would take a tremendous amount of skill and fine tuning to pull this off in a way that wouldn't come off as hyperactive head hopping. My instinct tells me that this sort of technique would work better with fewer characters to deal with. Structurally, you would probably switch between characters each chapter.

[Seto_Sora]

It would take a tremendous amount of skill and fine tuning to pull this off in a way that wouldn't come off as hyperactive head hopping. My instinct tells me that this sort of technique would work better with fewer characters to deal with. Structurally, you would probably switch between characters each chapter.

true that. This is something I've been experimenting with my own writing style. I've kinda adopted a philosophy that no character is a minor character in my writing. It is really very difficult to maintain this in a large setting with alot of characters simply because it can be hard to track. Baccano! was able to do this, but like you said Rushia, from chapter to chapter or from episode to episode. Another point was that the story told of an event that happened over a relatively short span of time.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is to practice and practice. Probably with fewer characters at first (in meybe a short story) and concerning an event of a short span of time.

SDG

[LadyRushia]

Another thing to keep in mind is this: minor characters should not be equated with underdeveloped characters. A good story will have developed minor characters that seem to close the gap between themselves and the major characters. The Harry Potter series pops into my head immediately. There are a slew of minor characters in those books (Luna Lovegood, Neville Longbottom, Cho Chang, etc.) and they're all well-developed. Even though they don't get a lot of focus, they are still integral parts of the story at one point or another and they feel like main characters even though they technically aren't.

Minor characters need just as much completeness as major characters. They don't all have to be the ultimate number one saviors of the world, but if they're well-written, they'll be just as awesome as the main characters and they'll seem more like main characters.

Other than that, this specific idea about multiple main characters suggests a vantage point type of story to me. By that I mean a story about a single event or place seen through the eyes of multiple characters who may or may not know each other. They have something in common that somehow connects them.

[Syreth]

Difficult, but possible. Epic fantasy, like many other genres, heavily draws upon the archetype of having a central hero. There's an old adage that essentially says, "don't break down a fence until you know why it's there." It might be good advice to follow in this instance. Perhaps write a short story, or plot out an epic, with a central character, then when you've mastered that, try multiple characters. Just food for thought.

[SailorDove]

The "ball carrier" doesn't have to be one character, but it does need to seem like one unit. You may wish to research how to create & write "ensemble" cast stories. Two perfect examples of an ensemble group that the audience considered one unit are "Galaxy Quest" & "Ghostbusters".

There is no shortage of books on writing. And it's been my experience, that the better the writer the more they enjoy reading "how to write" books & articles. Something to do with being a "wordsmith".

Hopefully these terms might be of help in your pursuit to create your story.

[Seto_Sora]

Difficult, but possible. Epic fantasy, like many other genres, heavily draws upon the archetype of having a central hero. There's an old adage that essentially says, "don't break down a fence until you know why it's there." It might be good advice to follow in this instance. Perhaps write a short story, or plot out an epic, with a central character, then when you've mastered that, try multiple characters. Just food for thought.

And I have a scientific thought from this food for thought, we must test and discover! So we test taring down the fence to see what happens when we do! Then we make a calculated discovery and then we draw a calculated conclusion... unless we are eaten by bears... which could happen. Which would be a calculated discovery leading to the calculated conclusion to not tare down that fence! ^_^

Other than that, this specific idea about multiple main characters suggests a vantage point type of story to me. By that I mean a story about a single event or place seen through the eyes of multiple characters who may or may not know each other. They have something in common that somehow connects them.

What you said Rushia made me reconsider. Are we talking about vantage point main characters? Because when I thought about main characters it kinda was just like what you were saying about well connected characters. Or, as I would say, fully designed characters. Characters that are so deeply delved into or well written that they could easily "sit in" as the main character or if you considered the story from their perspective they have goals and purpose like a main character. That is what I think about when I think a story with no minor characters.

SDG

[rocklobster]

You could do like Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin do in their respective long-running fantasy sagas, Wheel of Time, and A Song of Ice and Fire. Neither of these have a "main character", per se, but they do have chapters that focus on each character's POV for a while. In fact, A Song of Ice and Fire has each chapter devoted to a specific character, and sometimes characters do get more than one chapter per book.

[LadyRushia]

Are we talking about vantage point main characters? Because when I thought about main characters it kinda was just like what you were saying about well connected characters. Or, as I would say, fully designed characters.

Not exclusively. A vantage point structure is just one way to go about using the concept. And I'm going to mention again that minor characters should be just as well-connected and designed as the major ones. If they serve no purpose, they shouldn't be there and if they're flat, they're useless. Think about the dozens of minor characters in Avatar: The Last Airbender, if you've ever seen that. Every single one of those minor characters are fully developed and somehow move the plot forward, but they only take center stage for maybe one episode. The term "minor character" should not be equated with "not important" or "not as important." If there's something unimportant in a story, don't put it in there in the first place.

[Syreth]

And I have a scientific thought from this food for thought, we must test and discover! So we test taring down the fence to see what happens when we do! Then we make a calculated discovery and then we draw a calculated conclusion... unless we are eaten by bears... which could happen. Which would be a calculated discovery leading to the calculated conclusion to not tare down that fence! ^_^

Even then you'd still need a proper control by which to measure the results, thus the fence... :]]]

[Yamamaya]

You could argue that every story does have a main character at one point, the character the author is currently focusing on the most.

But as for a main character throughout the entire story, no you don't have to follow that formula. Just make sure that the characters you do make are well developed. A story with no clear main character and weak minor and major characters can ruin your story even if it has a fantastic plot.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Thanks for your input, everyone! It's really a lot of good food for thought....

Perhaps if you wrote something thickly in omniscient viewpoint, using the narrator as the consistent personality who followed, for example, the struggles of a primitive tribe. The primitive tribe itself could be construed as the main character which is explored chapter by chapter through the individual members of the tribe. I could see this working well. It's a tough problem though.

Hmm, you gave me an idea that I'd never thought of before. See, I have an Oracle among the many other characters, a woman who can see glimpses of the past, present, and future - in her own words, "I just know everything." I'd never considered doing it like this before, but she'd make an interesting avenue for doing...first person and omniscient at the same time

Another thing to keep in mind is this: minor characters should not be equated with underdeveloped characters. A good story will have developed minor characters that seem to close the gap between themselves and the major characters. The Harry Potter series pops into my head immediately. There are a slew of minor characters in those books (Luna Lovegood, Neville Longbottom, Cho Chang, etc.) and they're all well-developed. Even though they don't get a lot of focus, they are still integral parts of the story at one point or another and they feel like main characters even though they technically aren't.

I disagree with that. Luna, Neville, and the others don't feel like main characters. They feel like well-developed minor characters. What I'm trying to figure out if I can do is go through all of Luna's and Neville's stories as well as Harry's, rather than just having them pop in where appropriate to advance the story. You can see what I mean in Deathly Hallows. Since almost everything is from Harry's perspective, we only find out what's happening at Hogwarts in little bits and pieces, and then at the climax we find out what Neville's been up to. If Neville was a main character, or at least felt like one, the book would go through all of his struggles even though he's not around Harry, because it would contribute to...the theme or something, I guess. I want my characters to feel like they're all equally important to the plot/quest/whatever, not like there's the leader and then a bunch of interesting but subordinate characters.

You could do like Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin do in their respective long-running fantasy sagas, Wheel of Time, and A Song of Ice and Fire. Neither of these have a "main character", per se, but they do have chapters that focus on each character's POV for a while.

Well, I've never read Martin (I know, I really should), but I would argue that's not the case with WoT, at least. Even though he doesn't always come up very often in the books, Rand al'Thor is the freaking Dragon Reborn, so he's the central character that all the others are drawn towards. Rand is the "hero" (though he's rarely seemed very heroic to me XD), the person you're expecting to fight against the main villain and probably win in some way. The other characters will help, of course, and you might find their character arcs more interesting, but Rand is still the main character.

That's the way I see it, anyway. Do other people disagree with me? There's probably multiple definitions of "main characters," which will confuse matters endlessly x.x

[LadyRushia]

I disagree with that. Luna, Neville, and the others don't feel like main characters. They feel like well-developed minor characters. What I'm trying to figure out if I can do is go through all of Luna's and Neville's stories as well as Harry's, rather than just having them pop in where appropriate to advance the story. You can see what I mean in Deathly Hallows. Since almost everything is from Harry's perspective, we only find out what's happening at Hogwarts in little bits and pieces, and then at the climax we find out what Neville's been up to. If Neville was a main character, or at least felt like one, the book would go through all of his struggles even though he's not around Harry, because it would contribute to...the theme or something, I guess. I want my characters to feel like they're all equally important to the plot/quest/whatever, not like there's the leader and then a bunch of interesting but subordinate characters.

Valid points. I think you're right and now I'm trying to think of a better example where everyone feels equal. Bacanno comes closest, but I think a question you'd have to ask yourself is how far you want to stretch it. Do you want to extend your equal focus to those two guards standing in front of the gate or the inn keeper who gives your characters a hard time? Do you want to go for a more limited approach where the equal focus thing only applies to characters you've named? I think once you answer those questions, you'll come closer to figuring out how to approach it. Although, I think it'd be easier to try this with only a few characters at first and then increase the number from story to story as you get better at whatever approach you take. If you try to tackle the idea of making 20 main characters right off the bat, you'll end up with a really long story that might not even resolve if you have to go through everyone's struggles.

When I was younger, I was writing a story that had nearly 100 characters total. I wanted all of them to be main characters, or at least involved enough in the story so that the story would be missing something important if they were cut, and I thought of most of them as main characters. Looking back, I realize that even though I tried to focus on everyone, I still had characters I focused on more than others. Since then, I've learned that it's easier to focus on everyone when there are less people to deal with.

TL;DR: I'm not sure if you can write a sweeping epic fantasy story that focuses equally on everyone if you have a large cast of characters.