Discussion What makes a good MC from reader's/your perspective?

1. Relatability. If it's an oblivious or a perfect character, no bueno. I can handle idiots in small doses.
2. Realistic . Yes and as long as the character develops and works within the story's universe, I don't mind realism. What I don't like is messiah-like MCs
3. Likability. Not on that definition. I like complex characters.
4. Unique. Tropes exist for a reason.
5. Righteousness. I never like people or characters like these. I like gray people. Being righteousness, to me, is like a free ticket for people to claim they are right in a situation they don't even experience. And in the process, bully people if they disagree. Right and wrong is, for me, is subjective even within modern or in-house norms. In many cases for me, righteousness can slide over boringness real quick.
6. Complexity. To an extent. As long as the motivations are clear and the there is consistency.
7. Consistency. Hell yes.
8. Sensible/Prudent. Depends on the character. Sensibility, in many cases, can hinder a character's development.

 

The most important for me is consistency. If the author described the mc as a smart person, then he/she/it shouldn't act like an idiot.

The second most important is unpredictability. An MC should make a difference to the story. If i can predict everything the mc would do, then he/she/it is failed as an MC.

For me, an mc doesn't need to be relatable or realistic. If the author can surprise me with an authentic unique MC, then they did a great job. But for side characters realistic and relatability are important.

 

I guess they have to be dynamic, ones that changes often in meaningful ways, or ones that I can learn from even if they're static. I don't usually care for or hate any kinds of MC unless done well, but if they just do things without changing something in them/learning nothing for themselves/symbolizes nothing to the readers or have nothing to say that can show me more about their perspectives on the world, then those protagonists just won't stick to me.

 

Never really considered Fang Yuan evil, per se. He's more neutral, like a tsunami or the plague. Or a shark. He has a goal, and he will do whatever is necessary to achieve it, even unspeakable or vile things, but he doesn't take pleasure in them. He doesn't rejoice in the pain he inflicts, he's completely cold and indifferent to it. He simply sees his actions as necessary, and once something is necessary it doesn't matter if it's moral. He's not good nor bad, he simply IS. It also took me a long time to get used to that kind of MC, the reviews turned me off from the novel for a long time, until I literally had nothing else to read so what the hell. Never regretted that choice.

 

#1 is definitely 'consistency'. An inconsistent main character isn't really a character but a plot device, in which case the story would be better off using other plot devices and doesn't need a MC. There are many good stories with an ensemble cast instead of single MCs so this is doable.

a major trait missing from your list is 'competency' : Obviously MC can fail very often, but if MC fails almost every time , a lot of readers would not enjoy the story.

edit:
I noticed a lot of people voted for likeability, but likeability is vague and the traits for a likeable MC changes depending on the tone, setting and plot of the story.

 

This is an interesting topic, and these are pretty jumping off points.

I find this one irrelevant. While characters that I relate to is nice once in a while, I prefer characters who offer a different perspective to what I'm familiar with. Empathy is more important, but that's something that the reader has to bring to the story rather than what the characters offer.

I don't like the word "realistic" here because realism is usually not very important. What matters more is verisimilitude, or the ability for the story and the characters to generate the suspension of disbelief. The main difference is that it's possible to create wild and unrealistic characters who are nonetheless characterized well enough to think of as human beings.

Having a likeable protagonist is nice, but I don't know how important it is. There are simply other factors that are more important, and I've been fine with characters who are relatively unlikable. The point of a lot of books is to not approve of the protagonist, but to use the protagonist's flaws and conflicts as a lens to explore the human condition. And these books tend to be some of the best ones out there.

I find this utterly irrelevant. I'd much prefer a stock character executed well rather than the most unique character executed poorly.

This is also not important because there's nothing that says that the protagonist has to be a good person. However, the danger is that writing anti-hero and villain protagonists is hard to pull off and the writer really has to know what he's doing or else the story will turn into garbage.

Slot this one with uniqueness. Complexity isn't all that important as long as the character is well executed. Given the same quality of execution, a complex character is usually better than a simple one, but even this is not universally true.

Yeah this is pretty important. Most of the time, the reader should understand how the protagonist functions. If he performs uncharacteristic actions then that's going to lose readers. However, this is only true some of the time. Just because the reader is supposed to understand the protagonist, that doesn't mean that this knowledge is always complete, and there's room there for a writer to surprise the reader.

This one is dumb and I wish that readers would stop insisting on it.

Overall, I'd say that the most important things for a protagonist differs wildly from work to work and that there really aren't any generalizations which don't have at least a few exceptions. Usually, I prefer protagonists that have strong personality traits so that it's easy for the reader to visualize what he is like. They should have enough texture to grip onto, and this is something that I find that a lot of amateur writers struggle with.

More than that, I'd say things like variations how they interact with the other characters in the story is also very important. Another way of looking at it is asking "How much does this character bring to the scenes he's in?" To be fair, this question is even better when directed towards the secondary characters in a story.

 

It should also be mentioned that some readers mistake inconsistent characterization with things like hypocrisy and inconsistency between speech and action, even though those can still be consistent characterization when done well.

 

This is pretty much the type of answer that I'm looking for. Very interesting.
This is the most eye-opening perspective that I've seen thus far.

From the way you're explaining the topic, I can't help but notice the fact that you're like a collector or an editor, rather than a reader.
If I were to describe it, It's like you're a food taster rather than a customer.

A very objective and fair way to judge the quality of the object. There's nothing subjective, which I found to be very amazing.

So, basically, you view that the best type of MC is a strong personality type to make it easier for the readers to visualize.
There is one question that I want to ask: Does not visualization require understanding or logic involved?
Because in my sense, I would have a hard time to immerse myself in something that I don't understand.

and also, What is a strong personality means exactly? Is it like Naruto, a unique and stubborn persona, where the readers would be able to distinguish Naruto and other characters even by the description?

 

well i for realistic i mean mc being one makes me see his perspective where he does things for reason not because the plot says so or that just because hes op enough so he can do all stuff without thinking
well theres too many novels with op mc but the ones that stays and lingers on the audiences minds are those with logic and expertise. i mean i like op mc but i like smart people more makes u see why they are op not just based on their character setting.
op + brains for the win
well op people die when they dont use brains specially on relationships *backstab* but if its use in rebirth novel for character growth im in just dont let mc continue being dumb unless the novels all about it: hes born innocent where everything he does is protected by the almighty plot armor

 

Hmm you're right. He's basically a Neutral since he's not really demonic. Evil is more synonymous to demonic these days, since human nature in neutral is always leaning more toward evil for some reason.

 

Yeah, the problem when I see the word consistency, I always think that it refers to characters acting predictably. And I think that characters acting predictably is sort of bad for fiction; in fact it's one of the worst aspects of Japanese web fiction because it leads to extremely static interactions between characters. What I figure is that the people who feel strongly about character consistency have a problem properly articulating what the real issue is.

It's not the strength of the personality that's important; it's the strength of characterization. The ability to visualize a character is important, but I think it goes deeper than that. The reader should want to know more about the character, and about how much more there is to discover. Another way of looking at it is to examine how engaging a character is and in what ways. If you could read Chinese I'd suggest reading Non-Player Character and see just how quickly he can draw readers into the characters he introduces - he often manages to do it in 1000 words or less.

It's not really a question of understanding or logic. It's more a matter of empathy and how well the writing clicks with the reader; about how it makes the reader care. I don't know if there's any way to properly generalize things because every character is constructed a bit differently, and what may work in one situation might not work I don't think that your example of Naruto works all that well because while haven't watched much of it, I thought that the characterization isn't particularly good. And that weak characterization is very common in Japanese otaku and otaku-adjacent works.

I've just read the author's introduction, and he's specifically supposed to be an evil villain.

 

I wouldn't quite call it intelligence or smartness. It's more of showing good judgement, being reasonable, practical or thinking things through b4 acting/decision-making. I believe it's an integral part of human nature since we are rational creatures, too. It's also not exclusive to any alignment.

Ofc, the "good judgement" part is subjective since people tend to have differing opinions on what would be considered a wise course of action. Moreover, not everyone gives careful consideration to every course of action; sometimes our emotions lead us to make choices on a whim, and many times the decisions are not important enough to warrant serious contemplation. But when the results can be life-altering (or rather, when one believes the consequences could be life-changing), there's few who wouldn't debate the pros and cons. And therein lies the reason for my discontent with xuanhuan MCs (I'm talking specifically about them; refer to my original post).

They are rash, instinctual... like animals. They never think things through, and act on impulse even when they had the option of not doing so. Note that I'm not referring to situations where instantaneous decisions or quick thinking is needed. I'm only talking about those incidents where they had the time for it. And authors mostly do it to force conflict- poor writing at it's finest, IMO.

P.S. The selfishness and indifference are more personal preferences than anything else. Makes MCs more relatable, believable for me. And not wanting a character to be completely evil stems from my belief that most humans aren't black or white but varying shades of grey. Ofc, it's dubitable since morals are subjective.

P.P.S. My focus is on wish-fulfillment fiction. Many say it's easy to write, more say it's predominately trash. But, if you ask me, it's primarily bcuz good wish-fulfillment fiction is actually hard to write. Most often you end up with a ludicrous isekai or generic xianxia instead of a Toika novel (or replace with any other any well-received wish-fulfillment novel).

 

1. Relatability
Even if I'm not a fan of the MC, being able to understand their character is a big draw.

2. Realistic
They don't have to be real-world level realistic, but their choices/actions need to line up with their personality.

3. Likability
Infinitely preferable, but not completely necessary if the above two points apply.

4. Unique
It's okay if it's a template MC with a twist. A carbon copy of many MC's who came before makes me drop the story completely.

5. Righteousness
Not so much righteous as a fundamentally good person. Unless the MC is a villain of course.

6. Complexity
It helps. I'm a huge fan of character growth. An MC that doesn't learn from their experiences is no fun.

7. Consistency
This. Lines up with my feelings on realistic MC's.

8. Sensible/Prudent
They don't have to start out sensible/prudent, but I would like to see them become so as the story progresses. Or die.

I like MC's who have real flaws and end up resolving those flaws as they evolve and adapt due to their experiences. I heavily dislike MC's who should have suffered/died as a result of terrible choices and yet somehow manage to sail through the story without ever facing actual hardships or overcoming obstacles. It's boring, they're boring and once I see a story heading in that direction I drop it.

 

Which can be shorten as 'Wise'? Would you agree to that term?
Because I think wise doesn't necessarily require a good intelligence.

 

Basically, it's Charm, right? A mix in between Relatability, Complexity, and Likability, but more leaning to likability.
Thx for the reply!

I think 'evil' have somehow changed their definition ever since superhero genre came out. It could be even further behind, so I'm not sure though.
In the past, any act that harm other people for selfish benefit is basically evil. Even if you did it for your family, the selfish act that would endanger everyone is still considered as evil. However, the meaning has somehow changed to Neutral ever since the genre out.
Because Evil is now synonymous to being 'demonic' or doing evil for the sake of evil. Believing evil to be the ideal form of living.
While Neutral is synonymous of being free and unfettered by the acts of good or evil, which motivated by benefits. Good or evil in their eyes is just a mean to an end. The most important point of Neutral guys are the fact that they know how to repay favor and enmity separately. They're bounded by some sort of bottom line, so that they can't be categorized as demonic.

I don't know since when the definition has changed, but you get my point.

 

It's somewhat related to some of these, but not really any of them. I think of it in terms of engagement and texture in characterization. Basically, it's character traits that readers can empathize with. This is as much dependent on how the character is written and presented as it is on those traits themselves.

The writer himself used the term "真正的大反派", a proper main villain. His very goal was to write an evil villain. I guess you can argue that he failed in his task, but there's no mistaking what the character is supposed to be like.

 

I like an MC that does things that make other characters jaws drop and make big plays. Like luffy or Fang Yuan. But this mainly depends on having conflict. For example, Suburu isn't cool, instead he just dies over and over but I like him as well. Basically they either have to suffer or the reason they win is because they did something crazy.

 

Is it too much to ask for a mc with common sense. When you go to a country there is absolutely no need to immediately piss of the emperor, just because you didn't have a king or an emperor on earth is no justification to have your iq drop and make such dumb decisions.

 

action reaction thing, no it not about realistic thing but this cat like there logical explanation about character trait~ it may mentioned via background story, the way mc act, speak, other pov ect~ this will also for explain why mc may trait change be it slowly or suddenly~ unpredictable without explanation after, during or before act imo just like plothole
complexity not really matter cuz imo it mostly depend on what kind story this cat read~ if this cat read about muddle of inner harem live bloody war, crime, or miltary story then yes complexity may enhance character appeal~ while when reading spongebob type of story this cat not care about complexity
hmm also imo another important thing is it not all about mc~

 

I vote for a realistic MC, and by extension, a complex MC.

Alright, realistic doesn't always means complexity. But that'll be explained latter.

First of all, realistic MC. My point is almost the same as other replies, that is, the MC should have a believable motivation that backs up their action. The "believable" part would vary from story to story, but at least it works on the principle of action = reaction and is in tandem with the storyworld's logic and rules. Sure, some action might triggers an exaggerated reaction because emotions and such. But at the very least, i would love it if the author could make us, readers, nods in understanding for the MC's motivation in doing things, no matter how petty or vile.

Realistic MC also means that the MC have flaws. The bigger the flaw, the more i'll love them. The flaws could come from either their personality, or from incomplete informations that they have. For example, an MC believed that she's rigtheous. This trait leads her to be stubborn and pridefull, and the author would prick this fault from time to time and maybe makes that trait into her downfall. Another example is an MC that have a knack for planning, but his plan was ruined because of a 'dark horse' that he didn't take into account. And yes, i love to see the MC fail.

Secondly, the MC doesn't live in a vacuum. Their flaws, experiences, and the storyworld's "rules" shaped their personality and gives them an...inner contradiction and a unique perspective on things. This combination is what i call "complexity" in a character. The MC doesn't always have to have a super dark past, embroiled in court politics, or a general planning an intricate ambush to be called "complex". A story about a cat MC lazying around in the sun could very well be complex if, for example, the cat MC is a fluffy little kit who would turn into a lionesss if someone distrubs her sleep. Maybe her experiences have taught her to value nap times. Maybe she's simply lazy and would only move for certain things. I see complexity as a by-product of growth, and a logical reaction that was caused by a certain action that is,life.