I've been developing a fantasy story for a while where there are 10 main characters who go on a journey together. Is this number too large, especially for someone who is less experienced in writing fiction?
To some degree, it depends on the kind of story you want to tell. Large casts can work well in epic fantasy, space opera, or techno thrillers because you can parcel them out to various corners of the world, where they can give the reader a look inside different factions or advance certain storylines. Ten main characters would be a lot for anyone to juggle, though, and if they’re all journeying together, you aren’t getting the benefit of all those characters the way Martin does in A Song of Ice and Fire, for example, with all the POVs in different places and following their own stories that tie into the main one. Ten is probably too much for a novice to handle, though even a veteran would have their hands full juggling all of them. Again, just look at George R.R. Martin. Because they’re all together, I’d ask yourself whether you need or even have ten main characters. Like, just because there are ten characters in your “adventuring party”, that doesn’t mean they’re all main characters. You may find your story is actually only about one or two of them.
The question is, are those 10 *really* all "main" characters? Just because they are all part of the main party, do they have equal billing and equal page time? Each with their own fully fleshed character arc and journey? The problem you have is, if they all are, your work will be massive. Even a work like Lord of the Rings doesn't focus on every single character in detail, and kills off some, like Boromir.
Three main characters are standard I feel. Then 5 is an ensemble cast and 7 is the absolute MAX. For good guys or bad guys. Anymore than 7 and no one gets a persona or meaningful screen time.
I guess it depends on how "Main Character" is defined. They definitely do not have equal page time. There's the protagonist who obviously has the most page time, and then a few others who are still very prominent. There's also a traitor who leaves the group halfway through, so I probably shouldn't include him as an MC. I guess I just am wondering if readers are going to think "why didn't companion #6 get more time devoted to her?" or something like that.
A main character needs depth, the more main characters you will have, the less depth you will be able to give and the more it will be complex to understand. One, two, three, perhaps four and five, but not more.
In general, I find it difficult to read a single, standalone book if it's got more than four perspectives. I don't mean to say I feel stupid when reading such a book, but I feel rather like no one is important if the perspectives keep flipping between multiple people. Getting all perspectives on a plot sounds impossible, I feel, because it requires consideration of even the smallest of characters, like the janitor who heard the blast three buildings over (as an example), who then only has a scene, maybe two. If I'm focused on writing everyone into the story, I'm losing the story. Which I think is why this stuck out to me. It feels more like a concern you as the writer have more than something I would have as a reader. I feel like as long as there is an actual purpose for a perspective to exist in a story, kind of like I think someone mentioned above where the POVs all converge eventually, then it isn't an immediate problem. I also feel like more than 4 POVs in a book kind of necessitates more than one book, a series or something. Trying to condense the plot to fit within a single book is going to make it massive or really muddy.
