Thread: It is no wonder that wannabe writers become confused...

Here’s a gem I just found on Wikipedia:


“The focal character is mostly created to simply be the "excitement" of the story, though not necessarily the main character about whom the audience is emotionally concerned.”

Last time I looked, excitement and emotional concern are simply two ways of describing the same characteristic.

Excitement is put in quotes here for a reason--ie, it's being used in a special sense--and the next line, omitted in the OP of this thread (along with any handy link) defines that sense quite adequately. Seems to me this sort of typography is pretty common usage, when fine distinctions are being made, and shouldn't really confuse anyone familiar with reading, whether they wanna write or not. In any case, it's difficult to see why the 'excitement of the story' and 'the emotional concern of the reader' should be assumed to be the same thing at all. The examples provided seem quite clear-cut.

Objecting to this construction on the basis that excitement may be a form of emotional concern begs the question. The author is going about creating the distinction in those terms to illustrate the distinction between focal character and protagonist. They are deliberately chosen to share some characteristics. I will admit that it requires a modicum of imagination--and the patience to read three or four sentences together--to get the gist of this article but I doubt it will cause much bewilderment or lasting damage. However, considerable good may ensue from pointing wannbes such as myself to the idea that the protagonist and the focal character need not be the same, so I'm thankful for that.

Originally Posted by ppsage

Excitement is put in quotes here for a reason--ie, it's being used in a special sense--and the next line, omitted in the OP of this thread (along with any handy link) defines that sense quite adequately.

Oh? Seems to me the next line – here ‘tis – “The focal character is, more than anyone else, "the person on whom the spotlight focuses; the center of attention; the man whose reactions dominate the screen”” – only serves to reaffirm my own belief. All that jism is just another way of describing the Main Character.

Objecting to this construction on the basis that excitement may be a form of emotional concern begs the question. The author is going about creating the distinction in those terms to illustrate the distinction between focal character and protagonist. They are deliberately chosen to share some characteristics.

I do thank you however for your further correct usage of “begs the question.” In time, this entire site may well be overrun by posters who’ve learnt how to use it.

“The focal character is mostly created to simply be the "excitement" of the story, though not necessarily the main character about whom the audience is emotionally concerned.”

I think what its saying is that there must be another character for the reader to focus on other than the main character? So the focal character could be the antagonist, who certainly supplies the "excitement" to the story. Or the focal character could be a "hero" of the protagonist - someone they aspire to.

How would either of you describe Ishmael and Ahab in Moby Dick? Ishmael is the narrator. Is he also the focal character? Ahab is the protagonist since the conflict is between Ahab and the whale, not Ishmael and the whale. Ahab is not a likable person, so it would not have been a good idea for Melville to make Ahab the focal character. C.M.

The larger question here is, did the author of the Wikipedia article know what he was talking about? If the quality of the writing in the article (The focal character is mostly created to simply be . . . [that's terrible]) is any indication, I wouldn't waste much time trying to figure out what he means.

Good point, Terry. I've noticed that many Wikipedia articles are written by general researchers rather than experts in any particular field. This article may or may not have been written by someone with any literary credentials.

If you don't like the wikipedia article, edit it. You can, you know.

That's what makes it wikipedia.

Originally Posted by C.M. Aaron

How would either of you describe Ishmael and Ahab in Moby Dick? Ishmael is the narrator. Is he also the focal character? Ahab is the protagonist since the conflict is between Ahab and the whale, not Ishmael and the whale. Ahab is not a likable person, so it would not have been a good idea for Melville to make Ahab the focal character. C.M.

Errm the narrator? I have not read it but from what you say it sounds like the Whale is the focal character and Ahab is the main character. (based on the wikipedia comment)

Originally Posted by Terry D

The larger question here is, did the author of the Wikipedia article know what he was talking about? If the quality of the writing in the article (The focal character is mostly created to simply be . . . [that's terrible]) is any indication, I wouldn't waste much time trying to figure out what he means.

Probably the best point made here, but I'd go further and say that the article is assuming that there's a right answer to be had. A rule like that makes no sense at all.

In terms of confusing wannabe writers, that's what you get for listening to an author's advice, assuming that they're an author. If not, I don't know why they bothered writing the article. Either way, tosh, I think.

I believe I read somewhere that the first rule of writing is there are no rules. If you can get away with it, go for it. That being said, I've always been taught that the "focal character" and the "protagonist" are the same person, place or thing. To do otherwise, in my thinking, is to confuse the reader. So if Ahab is the protagonist, is the whale the MacGuffin? Each character has a part to play in a story, each has their own focus.

Doghouse Reilly

The advantage of Wikipaedia is, as astroannie points out, that anyone can be an expert on anything. If you don't like the advice given about writing, then rewrite it. If you feel you need references to lend credence to your opinions, make some up. No one will know the difference.