Ensemble or single protagonist?

[John McFetridge]

This probably came to mind because of all the discussion going on about "something new."

Once again, it's TV shows that come to mind. I remember when detective/cop shows were mostly single protagonist like Columbo, Mannix, Kojak, The Rockford Files (or partnerships like Cagney and Lacy). Then, with things like Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue the shows started to take on more of an ensemble approach, and a big compliment at the time was that they were, 'like novels.'

I guess things like The Wire took it even further.

Today, in novels, though, it seems like the single protagonist is still the most popular. Is it? What do you like?

[Eric Christopherson]

If one protagonist is most common in mysterysuspense fiction--and I think it is--then I think it's because it's hard to make an entire ensemble engaging. Most novelists are lucky if they can develop one character who really pops. I've only read one Ed McBain 87th precinct novel myself, and while the story was tight and entertaining I wasn't really all that engaged with the characters, to tell the truth. I'd be interested to know who takes the ensemble approach and really makes it work. (Perhaps McBain did, and it's just me, or I picked up the wrong book.)

One of the chief pleasures of the novel, at least for me, is to get inside the head of another person, an intriguing person, so there's only so much room in a novel to achieve that--another reason why the multi-protagonist approach will remain in the minority, IMO.

[Sandra Ruttan]

I think the solo protagonist does have a possible contribution to the repetition we see in the genre. One of the other things that is a common practice is to have the case have some personal connection to the protagonist - the victim is their child/lover/spouse/sibling/mentor, or there's an adversary they're always up against who's back in the picture. At some point, that's really unrealistic.

There are advantages and disadvantages to writing with multiple protagonists, as you surely know yourself John. As a reader, if I get a first person narrative with a character I can't stand, I'm done. There's no relief. And that doesn't mean it has to be a nice character I connect with - Mabanckou's AFRICAN PSYCHO made me feel the need to scrub my brain out afterwards, but the story was completely engaging - but if the character is a cliche or embodies things I loathe (women who solve stress with a shopping spree and name-drop fashion items every other sentence=no thanks) I move on.

The disadvantage for an author is the risk of repetition, and moving out of the realm of any realism by having case after case where the protagonist has some connection, some reason he/she is going to hunt down the killer by any and all means necessary.

I prefer two or three protagonists for a number of reasons. For one, you can move in different directions, have a different protagonist take center stage in different books, and you avoid the realm of the unbelievable because you're able to have one person have some personal connection. You have more room to explore. And here's another reason: limiting work to a few protagonists can work as a cheat against the reader. I noticed this far more writing Frailty than ever before, because in WBW I think I have 8 different pov's throughout the book. Three main, but there are a few scenes throughout where you get to see what someone else is thinking. It allows the reader to know more at that moment than the protagonist does, so they can anticipate what's coming. With Frailty, I strictly limited myself to my three protagonists for pov scenes, and I realized it was so damn easy to pull out twists and surprises by comparison to WBW, I actually felt I was cheating, because the trick was just in holding information back from the reader. It certainly doesn't take particular skill to do that. (And one of my major pet peeves is getting to the end of the chapter the character makes a decision and then thinks, "If only I'd known how much I'd regret that later." Such a tedious artificial suspense builder that's overused. I can forgive seeing it here and there, but the odd author overplays it again and again and it drives me nuts.)

The main reason publishers prefer single protag works, or ones with two protags, maybe three, is because readers can find it hard to follow so many characters. Personally, though, most of my reading falls in the multiple protag, third person narrative that allows you to move around, so I guess it makes sense I decided on three protagonists for this series. The same won't be true for everything, but I like ensemble casting. The main trick is to try to convey to the reader there's enough there with the characters and storytelling to read more, and my own belief is that every book out in a series you should get to know the characters better (otherwise what's the point of the series?) so you have somewhere to go with developing them.

[Donna Moore]

I really enjoy both. If you get a single protagonist that you enjoy then that's great - you really get to know them. However, I also really enjoy books with ensemble casts. Possibly because a lot of caper novels are written like that and I love those. Mark Haskell Smith, Bill Fitzhugh's ORGAN GRINDERS, Dave Barry's BIG TROUBLE, some of Carl Hiaasen's spring immediately to mind. I like books written from multiple points of view - Allan Guthrie, Duane Swierczynski, Steve Brewer and Declan Burke for example. Sometimes one or two characters get more focus than others, but there are still multiple viewpoints. I love seeing how the characters revolve in their own little orbits but how you can see their paths gradually getting closer and closer until they eventually collide. That type of book also keeps me reading because I'll be engrossed in Character A's point of view and want to read on when suddenly - bam - you're with Character B. You want to read on to see what happens to Character A and....oooooh...suddenly Character B's story becomes really interesting.

[Sandra Ruttan]

And Ken Bruen's Brant books are ensemble cast, really.

[I. J. Parker]

That might explain why I prefer the Jack Taylor ones. No, actually, I have some additional quarrels with the London ones.

[I. J. Parker]

In my reading, I prefer single protagonists but like a supporting cast. For my own books: single protagonist with an occasional sidekick. But that has more to do with the fact that I'm also working on the man's life. I'm just not that interested in the sidekick as a main feature -- to the regret of some readers.

[I. J. Parker]

Hmm. This disappeared from the forum rather rapidly. I thought it was an interesting topic. We should get rid of the topics nobody has commented on for a while.

[John McFetridge]

I guess I brought this up because I like books with large casts of characters. I like TV shows with large casts of characters and storylines that don't resolve in an hour. But I'm sometimes (often?) told that readers find this confusing. I've never met a reader who finds it confusing (although an Amazon review of my first novel did complain about it).

I'm interested in the way police forces work as a group and the way organized crime works as a group - they mirror each other in a lot of ways.

I hope ensemble isn't too small a niche.

[I. J. Parker]

Absolutely agree on the police procedurals, but even there I like the main focus to be on the one person. In general, life and work puts one in close contact with others and it is more realistic when they are more than mere shadows in a novel.

[L. Y. Canthrope]

One of the main reasons television writers offer an ensemble of protagonists is to claim a wider audience. One viewer identifies with a certain protagonist while another may be repelled. This is using more of a shot gun or mass appeal effect to gather in the greater audience. The less effective protagonists can be eliminated and newer ones may take their place.

[I. J. Parker]

Never thought of that. An excellent point that should also be good for crime series.

[John McFetridge]

Well, there's all that identifying with the protagonists, sure, but often the main reason for the bigger cast is they're telling a bigger story from more points of view. There used to be the (I think) overly-stated view that viewers (or readers) couldn't follow a lot of characters. In TV there are a lot of good shows being made now that prove that just isn't so.

I think it's true with books, too, it usually isn't the readers that have trouble following ensemble stories or multiple pov books. agents might have a tough time with it, though....