Minor Character POV

[Homer Potvin]

Has anybody messed with this? Like Watson in Sherlock Holmes, the Chief in Cuckoo's Nest, or Red in Shawshank. Even Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island would kind of qualify. It's a narrator who isn't the MC, doesn't have much agency, isn't terribly interesting compared to the rest of the characters, and only real claim to fame is they're the one who's telling the story, typically with some narrative distance and past reflection. It's a very interesting gag that allows the narrator to comment on all the characters and the plot without the burden of existing in the rest of the characters' heads. In a lot of ways, their observations can't be challenged or questioned. It might not be their story, but it's their version of the story that can't be contradicted by the characters who actually experienced it. It's almost journalistic.

I ask because the narrator in my current WIP seems to be slipping from an MC to a more minor character telling other people's stories. I'm not sure this is the right approach, but it has me thinking.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm ... have you read Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd? Your mention of Watson in Sherlock Holmes and "a narrator who isn't the MC" and "doesn't have much agency" (and also "isn't terribly interesting") reminded me of this book.

If you haven't, I strongly urge you to do so. I tried to quote directly from Google, but hide the twist in the book in spoiler tags ... but found that those don't work if set within a quote, so I abandoned that idea. (Obviously, please only read the spoilers if you've read the book).
=============
"The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" is controversial because it breaks the traditional rules of 1920s detective fiction by revealing the narrator, Dr. Sheppard, to be

Spoiler

the murderer.

This shocking twist was seen by critics at the time as "cheating" or "dishonest", as

Spoiler

the reader spends the entire book trusting the perspective of the killer they are trying to identify.

Key reasons for the controversy include:

* The Unreliable Narrator: Dr. Sheppard is a trusted, conventional narrator (functioning like Watson) who

Spoiler

misleads the reader without technically lying,

a technique that was highly unconventional at the time.
* Breaking "Fair Play" Rules: Critics argued that

Spoiler

the culprit

should not be someone whose thoughts the reader is allowed to follow.
* The Shock Twist: The revelation that the seemingly innocent narrator is

Spoiler

the killer

was unprecedented, creating a massive, long-lasting debate about narrative fairness.

Despite the initial backlash, the novel is now considered a masterpiece that pushed the boundaries of the mystery genre.
=============

In any event, this book might give you some ideas (e.g. how to 'anonymize' the identity of a character who turns out to be vitally important).

Even if it gives you no ideas, it's a great book. I believe this is one of the best that Agatha Christie ever created, and I read that she thought the same.

 

[Louanne Learning]

reminds me of Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby. I guess how big of a character you want the narrator to be depends on how much the other characters confide in him, and how much critique of them he offers. Does he colour the narrative with his own thoughts and feelings?

 

[Homer Potvin]

have you read Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd?

I have not. I'm not a Christie fan at all, but I might check it out. She's the godmother of the unreliable narrator. Not what I'm going for, though.

reminds me of Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby. I guess how big of a character you want the narrator to be depends on how much the other characters confide in him, and how much critique of them he offers. Does he colour the narrative with his own thoughts and feelings?

Oooh, good one. I forgot about him. Not a fan of the book but I might give it another read. It's short.

He and all the other characters I mentioned are in first person, I think. This is in 3rd, so it doesn't have that classic sit on Grandpa's lap while he tells you about his experiences. It's also a straight action/adventure story with zero-thrills, so it doesn't have that biopic, time is passing, reflective feel to it. But, yes, he absolutely firehouses the narrative with his own thoughts and feelings. Sometimes obnoxiously so. At least so far, 8K words in.

 

[Naomasa298]

Kind of, yes. I started one piece with the idea of two intertwined arcs, with the protagonist and antagonist being the main characters. But each story would be witnessed and narrated by characters who were themselves not the main character. They were reasonably important participants, but not around whom the story revolves. In fact, in the hero arc, the narrator's sister is more important than he is, and she's not the main character either. I was also using close third. The reason was to give an external view of what the two main characters are going through, although they each start to gain an understanding of their arc's MC.

I posted the start of it on the OG, but I wasn't really able to do it properly then. I could give it a much better go now, and I'll probably come back to it at some point.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I was also using close third.

Same. I'm starting to think the whole point of the minor character narrator, typically a first person I-guy, is to deliberately NOT get into the other characters' head while simultaneously devaluing the narrator's arc. Actually, that sounds a little cheats-y. You can limit it to one head but not have to worry too much about where that head needs to go. Call it a License to Tell vis a vis the narrator's view of the more interesting characters.

Oh, shit... I think I figured it out.

Laters.

 

[Naomasa298]

Same. I'm starting to think the whole point of the minor character narrator, typically a first person I-guy, is to deliberately NOT get into the other characters' head while simultaneously devaluing the narrator's arc. Actually, that sounds a little cheats-y. You can limit it to one head but not have to worry too much about where that head needs to go. Call it a License to Tell vis a vis the narrator's view of the more interesting characters.

Yeah, I used medium distance POV when I wanted to do that. Deliberately not show what the narrator was thinking. Wasn't a huge problem.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

I love The Great Gatsby, and Nick Carraway was the first example I thought of. He also has the interesting distinction of being the only character who was essentially changed by the events of the book.

I read a book a couple of years ago where the mysterious narrator was eventually revealed to be a venomous snake. I can't recall the book's title or plot; except for that weird little twist, it was unmemorable.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Yeah, I used medium distance POV when I wanted to do that. Deliberately not show what the narrator was thinking. Wasn't a huge problem.

Pretty tight distance for me but I might stretch it back a bit.

I love The Great Gatsby

I'd rather read the ingredients on a shampoo bottle in Japanese, but I already pulled it from the shelf and skimmed through it a bit. It's not a bad book, but F Scott is my least favorite dead white guy from the American Canon.

Oh, shit... I think I figured it out.

Or not... getting closer. Third whack at a particular scene but I'm calling it a day. I'll fix it in post, as they say.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

... F Scott is my least favorite dead white guy from the American Canon.

He's not my favorite dead white guy, either. I've only read Gatsby (many times) and a volume of his short stories. One wonders how many ideas and turns of phrase he stole from Zelda. She publically accused him of plagarizing her diaries and letters, and the most famous line in Gatsby was originally uttered by Zelda after the birth of her daughter.

 

[big soft moose]

The Firm by Jake Arnott might be worth a look. It tells the story of Gangster Harry Starks ( a thinly disguised nod to the krays) through six different minor pov characters