# Multiple personalities



## Saeltari (Mar 5, 2006)

=) My first post in the forum. (= 

I am curious; which do you prefer to read, a book that focuses on and follows one main character or one that focuses on more than one? 

I can't stand multiple characters, drives me more nuts than I happen to be. I start reading a book that focuses on more than one main character and squirrels begin lining up outside my door.
Focusing on multiple characters and following them makes me feel like I am just watching the story, not a participant. I can get into a book that follows just one character and feel as if I am a part of the action, wringing my own legend out of the world I find myself in. I can feel the sword that slices by my ear in my first fight, or the rain upon my skin during my first rain in this new world some author has created. The heat and the drain from within as I use magic for the first time, the elation and fear at what I have done. However, when an author chooses to follow several different characters, spending a chapter here with one and perhaps a chapter there with another one, I feel as if I am, say, watching T.V. I become an observer, not a participant. Hate it.
Now that I have said that I am ok with books that spend a very short time with other characters, a paragraph each chapter or a short one page chapter. If I remember correctly, Gemmell does this and I enjoy his works. 
If you have any good books that follow mainly one character please list them as I am always looking for more. Chances are good though, that I probably read it.
I am looking forward to seeing what people's opinions are on this matter. Are you still happy when feel the wind as it ruffles your hair one second and the next you are yanked out of that body and shoved in some hairless monk who contemplates rainbows as the writings of the gods or do you prefer to stay with one character as I do?


----------



## hermi-nomi (Mar 5, 2006)

I'm currantly reading the secong book of Einarrin (sp) by Juliet McKenna and each chapter flows first from one of the main characters (Ryshad) then to an extract such as a letter from the archmage to someone else, then to a chapter one another character called Temar. Ryshad's chapters are written in the first person, but Temars chapters are not. This was a little confusing at first as I had been reading Terry Pratchett, which takes an omipresent viewpoint in story telling. I think that, unless the story is telling the story of one of its characters then the novel should be in an omipresent viewpoint. Which seems to be the opposite to what you prefer Saeltari? I can see what you mean when you say to like to live the characters story so that you can experience everything that they experience, but I'm not sure that I have read anything like that (at least not recently.) Sorry that I couldn't reccommend anything of the top of my head   but loads of recommendations will follow shortly, everyone reads an extradorinary amount here


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 5, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> =) My first post in the forum. (=
> 
> 
> I can't stand multiple characters, drives me more nuts than I happen to be. I start reading a book that focuses on more than one main character and squirrels begin lining up outside my door.


It's a shame you feel that way. you are eliminating many of the great books in Science Fiction, Fantasy, and most other genres of literature. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and look at the many points of view. I might suggest that each time the point of view changes, take a break and start fresh later with the new character.


----------



## nixie (Mar 5, 2006)

Depends on the book, though I do seem to be drawn more to books with multiple characters and lots of sub plots.Unless very well written, books that concentrate on just one or two characters can quickly become boring.


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 6, 2006)

nixie said:
			
		

> Depends on the book, though I do seem to be drawn more to books with multiple characters and lots of sub plots.Unless very well written, books that concentrate on just one or two characters can quickly become boring.


 
My god, It looks like your avatar has mutated!


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 6, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> It's a shame you feel that way. you are eliminating many of the great books in Science Fiction, Fantasy, and most other genres of literature. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and look at the many points of view. I might suggest that each time the point of view changes, take a break and start fresh later with the new character.


 
 I have tried to bite the bullet on a few occasions, but find it not really worth it most of the time. I just don't enjoy it much. What I actually end up doing is reading the character I enjoy and skipping or skimming over the parts when the author switches to another. I have a library of about a thousand books and out of it all I don't think I have more than twenty that have multiple points of view. I tend to trade them in for anything else I can get.


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 6, 2006)

nixie said:
			
		

> Depends on the book, though I do seem to be drawn more to books with multiple characters and lots of sub plots.Unless very well written, books that concentrate on just one or two characters can quickly become boring.


I agree they can become boring. Mostly, with the multiple pov's I just don't like spending time with a character I don't like. I do like it when an author sticks mainly with one character and switches for very short periods to another, that is most times still enjoyable.


----------



## Balfa (Mar 6, 2006)

As Nixie said, it depends of the book. For me, it's the story that matters. I mean, if the story is bad then neither one or one thousand characters could save the book.



> Focusing on multiple characters and following them makes me feel like I am just watching the story, not a participant.



What's wrong with watching the story? In some books, the story it's that thing that gets you going. In that case the main character is the world where the story is taking place. All the characters (as many as there is ) are just a pawns in a game. This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of GRRM. Everyone are just pawns in a big Game.


----------



## Presea (Mar 7, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> Focusing on multiple characters and following them makes me feel like I am just watching the story, not a participant. I can get into a book that follows just one character and feel as if I am a part of the action, wringing my own legend out of the world I find myself in.


 
Personally, I like following multiple characters more - mainly for the writing tools that mostly apply to it. I dislike knowing too much about a character from the start - I need a writer to be able to give gradual clues about characters as the story progresses, like a tease! With following a single character, I find that a reader knows much about a character very soon, and it is easy to become totally bored. Saying that though, Stephen King seems to do magnificently with one character... 

I guess action-wise it depends on the style in which you are introduced to each character.. there is no reason why you cannot feel involved in a scene with any of the multiples characters in a story. Furthermore, isn't it nice to be able to view a battle from both sides?


----------



## rune (Mar 7, 2006)

I prefer to follow a story through one character.  I find i get confused if there are too many leading characters.  And also if i can make a link with a character that takes me through the story, this quite often makes it a better read for me.


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 7, 2006)

Balfa said:
			
		

> As Nixie said, it depends of the book. For me, it's the story that matters. I mean, if the story is bad then neither one or one thousand characters could save the book.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with watching the story? In some books, the story it's that thing that gets you going. In that case the main character is the world where the story is taking place. All the characters (as many as there is ) are just a pawns in a game. This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of GRRM. Everyone are just pawns in a big Game.


A lot does depend on the story. However, and I may get in trouble for this, but with multiple characters it feels like more of a soap opera to me. That is what I mean by just watching. I think it is a difference in view. When I read I tend to identify with the character and I want to see more of their life, more of them. When an author switches between several different characters for lengthy sentences leading to paragraphs and chapters, then I begin to skip massive sections in the book. Multiple povs cuts down on the time I can spend with each character.


----------



## kyektulu (Mar 7, 2006)

*To be honest it really does depend on the author and how good they are at bringing multiple charecters, with mulitple personalitys, into the plot line and developing each charecter adequatly enough to make the reader relate with each one as an individual.
I have read many novels where I cannot really stand the main charecter and find myself really relating to a minor charecter, quite against what the author intended in sure!

Ps. I have to agree with you Nixie... oh you have changed your avatar!... and I was just getting used to your old one... 
*


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 7, 2006)

Presea said:
			
		

> . . . I dislike knowing too much about a character from the start - I need a writer to be able to give gradual clues about characters as the story progresses, like a tease! With following a single character, I find that a reader knows much about a character very soon, and it is easy to become totally bored. . . there is no reason why you cannot feel involved in a scene with any of the multiples characters in a story. Furthermore, isn't it nice to be able to view a battle from both sides?


 
 There is the difference. Know thyself, in this case know thy character. I want to know the character, what makes them tick, who they are. With multiple characters there is usually so little given that I feel like I know no one. Makes me sad. I would rather know one character well, than many characters only slightly. 
 The reason I am not involved in a scene with multiple characters is because often I care not about the majority of them. It is nice to see a battle from both sides sometimes, but if the author has done well then I can infer the other side from this one.


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 7, 2006)

rune said:
			
		

> I prefer to follow a story through one character. I find i get confused if there are too many leading characters. And also if i can make a link with a character that takes me through the story, this quite often makes it a better read for me.


Linking is good. It is what pulls me through the pages to a new world. Otherwise I feel as naught but a bystander hearing the echoes of life.


----------



## Presea (Mar 7, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> There is the difference. Know thyself, in this case know thy character. I want to know the character, what makes them tick, who they are. With multiple characters there is usually so little given that I feel like I know no one. Makes me sad. I would rather know one character well, than many characters only slightly.
> The reason I am not involved in a scene with multiple characters is because often I care not about the majority of them. It is nice to see a battle from both sides sometimes, but if the author has done well then I can infer the other side from this one.


 
We like complete opposites! Granted, if you enjoy creating a link with characters, then it is most effective to get to know a single character, including from their actions throughout a story. I, for one, like to know my characters intimately (being the romantic that I am!). However, it is the way in which I get to know them that I am picky about. Discovering gradual pieces about a character throughout a book excites me - it encourages me to read on, as if I was solving a mystery. Yet I don't believe that this is completely possible if the story followed just the one character all of the time. 

Also, I think, different characters give different elements to a story with their personalities. What I mean by this is, for example, it is an effective contrast to have a idealistic, female character in a story to be able to appreciate the kick-ass-ness of a rugged, male warrior character (don't slate me! Just an example!). And if, as a reader, I was only following one character, I would be slightly frustrated at the fact that since I was only seeing a story through one character's eyes, it would be of a slightly biased account. 

Yes, if a writer is skilled he could give an effective view of each side's account in a battle; but I think I still couldn't shake off the feeling that the story would be biased toward one side. Besides, I like the whole concept of: 'There is no absolute good or evil, just opposing sides.. blah blah..' 

Okay, enough from me!


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 7, 2006)

The key here for me is that a good author can write the book using one of several methods. Some stories are best told by writing different chapters from different points of view. Others work very well for the point of view of a single character. To decide that you only want to read stories or books written a single way is to limit your potential to enjoy. Granted some styles and authors are harder to follow or stay with but frequently well worth the effort.


----------



## hermi-nomi (Mar 7, 2006)

Presea wrote; 





> However, it is the way in which I get to know them that I am picky about. Discovering gradual pieces about a character throughout a book excites me - it encourages me to read on, as if I was solving a mystery. Yet I don't believe that this is completely possible if the story followed just the one character all of the time.



I agree with Presea in that I enjoy stories that are told in such a way that you can discover things about characters as you go along. Such a method works well when you are following one or two characters within the same group, or who come to a reckoning, meeting and thus tieing up discoveries made during the plot. If a storie sis told in the first person, then it wouldn't be possible to see the links between opposing characters, only the events and the way the first person reacted to them. I think htat for the sake of believable action, you would need to use more than one character viewpoint, especially if the story  spans any length of distance or time.


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 8, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> The key here for me is that a good author can write the book using one of several methods. Some stories are best told by writing different chapters from different points of view. Others work very well for the point of view of a single character. To decide that you only want to read stories or books written a single way is to limit your potential to enjoy. Granted some styles and authors are harder to follow or stay with but frequently well worth the effort.


It is not that I have 'decided' to limit what I read to a single way, it is more that over many years of reading that is what I have come to. It is not really a decision, per se. It is more of what I have grown into. Although, years ago when I was shorter I wasn't to fond of multiple povs either. I have tried several books that have multiple povs and all I end up doing anymore is skipping most of the book. I just don't enjoy it as much.


----------



## Saeltari (Mar 8, 2006)

It is starting to look like most people like multiple point of view stories, though.  . I was hoping to start a revolution. . .


----------



## Sibeling (Mar 8, 2006)

Sometimes one point of view would be nice in a book. for example when I was reading Foundation by Asimov, I kept wishing there was only one person who tells the whole thing because there were just too many names and I had to look back all the time to check who was who..


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 8, 2006)

Sibeling said:
			
		

> for example when I was reading Foundation by Asimov, I kept wishing there was only one person who tells the whole thing because there were just too many names and I had to look back all the time to check who was who..


Life is a challenge.


----------

