I'm really confused (even after reading a lot about plots and plot lines) I get the concept but not sure whether I'm on the right track. I have 3 really strong well developed characters, they all live in the same neighborhood, and they all have the same goal which is to defeat a bully in the neighborhood. They go about it in slightly different ways (even though they are linked). Can they all follow slightly different paths but eventually defeat the bully together. Any help is appreciated.
Gosh, writers do this all of the time. Usually where there are contenders working for the same goal, there are only two; three will work if you write well and you understand the rules regarding good writing. It is best to have the contenders opposing each other as well as working towards their goal: this punctuates the story's arc, and where set-backs for one or more main character belongs / are required.
For an example, look at the Marvel movie The Avengers. The protags are all working to defeat the same bully, they bicker constantly over differences of character and ideals, and yet they manage to work together well enough to achieve the goal in the end. In fact it's largely the bickering that makes the movie so enjoyable—it creates tension and yet we see how the characters differ as well as how they align on the important issues. In fact I just realized—the antagonist uses and intensifies their bickering to his own advantage and nearly destroys them in the process.
SO helpful, thank you. If I do end up using all 3, doesn't it defy the Main Character rule ?? to have 3 equally strong ones. Pls do help to elaborate on protagonist and whether I can have 3 main arcs. Would appreciate if you can explain here without directing to links as Ive read so much on it that I my head is swimming. Thanks in advance!
There's no Main Character Rule. Have you seen The Avengers? No main character, it was more of an ensemble piece. Each character has their own arc.
I would note that all the major characters had their own solo movies, in which they were the main characters with their own character arcs, before the Avengers, as well as being known from the comics. Not that you can't have multiple main characters, but that if you want to, the Avengers is a bad format to follow, both because it was a movie and because they were combining characters people already loved as individuals. And, even then, Tony and Steve were the heart of the movie, the whole ensemble wasn't equally important. It's fairly rare for books to have characters that are truly equally important (it's more common to have multiple pov's with one still standing out as the main character) and I can't think of any examples where there were three main characters (though I can probably think of a few with two), but that's because it's much more difficult to do well, not because it's inherently bad or impossible. You need the characters to be equally compelling to the reader, so they don't feel bored and frustrated when reading one storyline when they would prefer to be in another. You have much less time and space to get us attached and invested in each character. Each needs an internal character arc. You'll need to weave all three stories together in a way that both feels natural and makes each individual storyline stronger. Give it a go, and best of luck!
Points taken. Personally I can't think of any stories with multiple lead characters, or a true ensemble story. In movies I can only think offhand of The Big Chill, but I know there are more. I guess I don't care for them in general, plus they're not very common. My own tendency would definitely be to use a main character and have the rest be supporting. But I do know there are storries with a rotating POV, and I imagine at least some of these are ensemble pieces. My thinking is if you want to attempt something like that, you'd first want to really learn your stuff at writing stories with a lead character, and then try the more advanced technique of 3 leads. Also look into it, find some stories like that and see how they were handled.
Thank you all for your well-observed comments. The point about the Avengers characters already being well known before the movie made sense. So I should have pointed out that my characters are a dog, cat and parrot who are trying to escape their owner. Point 1) These animals are already known and loved by children. The readers would want all animals to be saved from the cruel treatment so they would be invested. Point 2) Each animal has a different (eg. the parrot thinks they should "talk" with their owner) and goes thru internal/external conflicts. They don't always agree (creating conflict). Ultimately, the dog's plan works but they all pitched in ! Do you see anything inherently wrong with the structure, what pointers should I keep in mind when trying to craft this story? Many thanks. PS: Animal Farm and Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath are stories with multiple key characters and no clear protagonist.
Ah, ok, it makes a big difference that this is a children's story. Or is it? Animal Farm is written (deceptively) in the form of a fable such as Aesop's The Ant and the Grasshopper, but is really an allegory about Communism, and can be understood as such by adults, while children of a certain age would see only a story about talking animals. Is your story written on just the one level, for children? Or does it have a hidden allegory, making it work on a different level for adults and those who 'get it?' If it's a children's story then character development is extremely minimal or nonexistent. But if it's like 20 pages with 8 of them being full-page illustrations, you don't have the length of a novel to develop characters and give them arcs. It's more like a short story, where often the arc is implied, or involves merely a character developing a new understanding. But I think most children's stories with talking animals wouldn't involve any kind of real character arc. They're generally more like simple stories with a lesson (like for instance "Bad adults should be escaped from, and possibly punished along the way.") But this sounds like all 3 characters will have a flat arc—they begin already knowing the story's big truth (that they should be free, or at least escape the cruel owner and perhaps find better ones). So there's no need for complex character development. In fact most likely no development at all. it sounds like a simple jailbreak story. You didn't lay out a structure for it. I would assume, if it's a children's story, it's a very simple and straightforward 3-act structure where in act 1 you introduce the characters and the situation, there's a hook (something to grab the reader's attention) and an inciting incident (something that makes it clear the animals are treated cruelly and should escape), then in act 2 the plan is concieved, discussed, and put into action, and in act 3 the big confrontation occurs, the owner makes his or her effort to stop them from escaping, which escalates things because now the orignial plan isn't going to work, but some character trait of each (that's already been shown) allows them to escape anyway (climax), and then perhaps we see a brief moment of the happy lives they're now living (denouement). But this is all predicated on my own assumptions. If I'm right and it's a straightforward children's story with talking animals (who can at least talk to each other), and there's no subtextual allegory (aside from the generally understood idea that the animals represent children or people), then each animal is a type rather than an individual, and most likely each will have one outstanding character trait (that I alluded to earlier), which proves to be helpful in some way in the big escape. Examples (not using your characters)—Rabbit can jump high or run really fast, Fox is crafty and good at stealing things, etc. In fact generally the types of animals would be chosen specifically for the main trait each one is associated with. This is probably because children aren't fully developed yet and don't yet have complex psychology or developed character traits aside from one or two simple ones, which will probably be with them for the rest of their lives. When they meet they see these traits in each other (one might be loud and aggressive, one meek and mild, or whatever), and they identify each other by these traits. So it works really well to use animals as stand-ins for children. They probably also see only one major trait in each adult as well, since their minds aren't developed enough yet to understand character in more complex terms than that. I'm just thinking my way through children's stories in general, trying to grasp how they work and how to approach characterization and story structure. Let me know if I'm off on anything, maybe your story doesn't follow this kind of model.
You are correct, I did not lay out a structure. And yes you are right, its more than a children's story. There is an underlying theme(s). Its not a simple breakout story because the animals get into the owner's personal possessions (they can read) and use the info against him. i.e. the owner has done some bad stuff which the animals find a way to expose. Its funny at times. PS: Can I also get my dog to write a letter, or is that pushing it too far ?
What is the theme or themes? It would be very helpful to know that, and at the very least you need to clearly know it. I think it could still be pretty short and simple—their getting into his stuff and writing a letter could be part of the 2nd act. Let me ask this—is it like a picture-book for very young children, or is it more aimed at 7 or 8 year-olds, who can digest a more complex plot? If someone's going to write a lettter, I could see it being the bird more likely—at least they have grasping appendages. I could see a bird gripping a pen or pencil. Or possibly the dog uses its nose to push the record button on a tape deck (I'm dating myself) and they record a message, with the parrot speaking. Or more simply, the parrot speaks to a crowd of people or a police officer or something.
Oh, and to address the original purpose of the thread with the new understanding I now have—I would say the three characters essentially function as one protagonist in terms of story structure. Yes, obviously they're capbale of each going off into different rooms and doing different things etc, but there isn't enough complex character development to require them each having their own story arc—In fact as I said above, I doubt they really grow or develop, it sounds like a flat-arc story where the protagonist(s) already know what's right and what's wrong, they're stuck in a bad situation, and they just do what they have to in order to remedy that. In fact, it might not be a lesson story so much as an adventure story—The Great Escape with animals. Unless the theme(s) you mentioned change that or there's more to the story than you've shared already, of course.
Sorry I'm late to the party, but the video game Final Fantasy 6 has always been my go-to example for "story with multiple lead characters". Not all of them are equally important, but at least the main 6 (Terra, Celes, Sabin, Locke, Cyan and Edgar) are all written as if they are the protagonists of their own story. What ties the story together is the villain - Kefka. In a way, the "main plotline" isn't really about any of the main six - it's about Kefka's development from a pathetic joke of a character into a demigod ruling over the entire planet. All of the protagonists at one point decide that their character arc can only truly be resolved by defeating Kefka. However, this can work in a video game only because an average playthrough lasts about 30 hours - enough to introduce and establish each character. Comparatively, "Avengers" only lasts about two hours, so the required character establishment can only be done through other movies. As for the OP - I think you've given us too little information about your story to come to a conclusion. So, I'll try to explain my definition of "plotlines" in hopes it can help you to reach a satisfactory conclusion on your own. If you have three well-developed characters working through most of the novel together in unison, you have one plotline with three lead characters with a possibility of one of them evolving into the leader of the group and therefore into the "main character". Polish children's books "Felix, Net, and Nika" have three strong lead characters who work in unison to deal with the conflicts in each book. Sometimes they do things on their own, but that's rare. Each of them has their own story that develops along with the main plot - these are not different plotlines, these are character arcs, subplots driven by the character's backstories and personalities. Different plotlines for lead characters are a bit tricky to explain, but I think the easiest way would be to say that they happen when you have multiple lead characters that have their own stories but barely interact with each other. "A song of Wraiths and Ruin" has two lead characters that start with their own plotlines - Malik wants to start a new life in the city of Ziran, while Karina tries to resurrect her mother. These two plotlines weave into one when it turns out both of them need each other's corpses to achieve their goal. So, we have two separate plots that combine into one. That's usually the case in these types of stories. Sometimes, you have a common goal all your protagonists follow, but a completely different set of events each protagonist comes across. Think about lord of the rings. Frodo and Aragorn are both lead characters that undergo a completely different journey with the same goal in mind - stop Sauron. My definition of a "plot" (stolen directly from my literary teacher in high school) is the "sum of events that happen in a story". So, I'd say that if two lead characters are met with completely different situations and conflicts, that's when you have different plot lines for lead characters. But when a group of lead characters undergoes the same events through most of the story, you have a single plotline with a group of well-established characters. Again, in LOTR, Aragorn and Frodo have different plotlines, but Frodo and Sam share a plotline. Still, Sam is a lead character. Hope this all makes sense
Hello again.... to answer some questions. No, not a children's book with illustrations, this is bit older maybe 12-16. To be honest, I am writing the story that appeals to me the most, I cannot tell at this point what age group, certainly not under 8 years. As far themes, its YA themes of fining one's identity, changing the status quo, overcoming self-doubt. There is also a theme of cruelty, deceit and self-centeredness (on part of the animals owner and his friends who visit). Hope that helps!
I must agree with @Cress Albane : All of those themes might be present, but one of them should be the overarching one that shapes the main line of the story. Also, talking animals are generally used in stories for young children, unless you're planning some clever subtext like Orwell used, and if you are you haven't mentioned what it is. Do you plan for the characters to have arcs—to grow and learn and change their positions on certain important issues (namely the major theme or themes)? How long of a story do you anticipate it being? Novel length, short story, or something in between?
Thank you all so much! All of your feedback is so helpful! Xoic - yes I do have a plan for them to grow and develop a great deal maturing through the process. It would be a novel. I'm curious to know which "clever sub-text" you are referring to that Orwell used ?
I just mean that it was a powerful screed against Communism, something you certainly wouldn't expect in a children's story. Really it was aimed at adults, just disguised as a children's story. It just seems a bit odd that you want to write about talking animals, but use young adult themes. It can work—certainly people ranging up into adulthood can enjoy talking animals, but it would need to be something more than just the simple children's tale suggested so far.
To this day, it's taught in Polish schools, due to our history with Communism. Tbh, most Poles never saw it as a children's story since most of the things presented there my parents witnessed first-hand.
Some other talking animal stories that spring to mind with appeal for older readers - The Plague Dogs, Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, the Romance of the Fox - Aristophanes did some plays with animal choruses. In film, Bojack Horseman I think is a well-written show... I am Not an Animal... Isle of Dogs. Even blooming Noah's Ark works on a few levels. I think talking animals' literary roots are really in parody - and the idea that children's books are a separate genre is a bourgeois, post-Victorian luxury arising in cultures like Beatrix Potter's where people start having more than one book in the house.
I'd say the roots of talking animal stories are in myth and fairy tale and fable, all of which have roots in dream and fantasy (in the psychological sense, I don't mean the literary genre of fantasy), because they all emerge pretty much directly from the unconscious, in metaphorical form. Plus the Victorian era was when they started to treat children as something precious and to be pampered and adored, rather than as small adults. It was mostly Victorian women who wrote such stories, aside from those collected by the Grimms and Hans Christian Andersen. They wanted to write special little stories just for them, to educate them in socially acceptable morals. That was not the purpose of myths, fairy tales and fables.
Doesn't mythology also play a big role in introducing the concept of talking animals to the literary world? I'd say if the OP's work is supposed to be played straight and not as a parody, rooting the story in a somewhat mythological setting could make the idea of talking animals more plausible. If memory serves right, some characters were able to talk to animals in "Percy Jackson" and I don't remember any readers saying it doesn't fit the genre. Mythological stories were never ashamed of introducing talking snakes, even in tales of mass genocide
