: How can I Switch Protagonists Between Books? Disclaimer: I am not intending on doing this. It is just a question I thought was fascinating and might be useful to other writers. Here's the scenario.

Vote Up Vote Down

The readers must not be surprised by it. The marketing for the second book must make it clear what is going on.

If you just say "The long-awaited sequel to Book 1", people will buy Book 2, but feel cheated and will never buy Books 3 and 4. (And your other books outside this series)

If you say "The adventures for Y, set in the same world as Book 1", people will know what is going on. Somewhat fewer people will buy Book 2, but they will not feel cheated and will probably continue to buy Books 3 and 4.

Of course, people will want to know what happened to the original protagonist after the end of Book 1. You should cover some of that between the action of the new book.

It helps a lot if the new protagonist has a significant role in the first book, to make readers care about their story. That way you can drop the "Set in the same world" part since everybody understands that.

You gave an example of a family saga, where the new protagonist is just a baby in the first book.

In that particular case, you can prime the readers to be interested in the next book by having the parents think about "How is the world going to be when Junior grows up?" Having them worry about this, you also make the readers worry about it... and then there is a new book just about that, how nice!

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Ender's Game is a famous book by Orson Scott Card, that spawned a number of sequels. One of them, Ender's Shadow, isn't exactly a sequel, it takes place at the same time as Ender's Game. The book describes a lot of the same events but is viewed through the eyes of Bean, a supporting character in the original book.

The way it is done is by telling the story of the new protagonist. His story is interesting in its own right, and happens to start elsewhere.

When the same scenes are later shown from a new viewpoint, they're told differently. Actions taken by the original protagonist (Ender) suddenly don't seem as good or obvious as they did when viewed through Ender's eyes, because Bean has his own concerns and different information.

That's the one he likes. He spent a whole novel with that person, learning deep truths about his character as they went through harrowing journeys together. Now he's suddenly forced to work with this new person, when he is only interested in reading about the old one. The reader puts the book down and leaves.

Well, make him like the new one too! And the new protagonist probably has his own views about some of those harrowing journeys.

Anyway, nobody reads a new book just to read more of the same.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Have a look at Brandon Sanderson's The Stormlight Archive.

He doesn't introduce a new protagonist, but rather shifts the primary focus from one protagonist to the next.

By doing so he retains the reader's interest, because the original protagonist is still present, and the reader can see how the new protagonist relates to the old one.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Mark Twain did this with Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

In "Tom Sawyer," Huckleberry Finn was the number two character after Tom. After they discovered ,000 of gold together (a quarter of a million in today's money), Huck became "equal" to Tom. So it made sense for Huck to have his own novel, with Tom as his number two.

I once considered doing this for a hero and heroine series (a his and her series if you will).

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

You can always form a bond between character and audience through shared experience. In this case, if the reader is going to be bummed that the old protagonist is gone, starting the new book with the new protagonist also being bummed that the old protagonist is gone can form a bond between the reader and the new protagonist.

There are a lot of ways you can spin this, depending on how you want your audience to feel. You can have the two protagonists be close friends, rivals, or bitter enemies, or you can even just have the former protagonist be a celebrity or remembered hero that the new protagonist admires but doesn't know personally; any kind of relationship that would imply some kind of emotional investment, which suits the tone you're trying to accomplish.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Consider Almanzo in the Laura Ingalls Wilder classic children's novels. He is a member of the cast of characters in most of the books. But somewhere along the line he got a book of his own, that tells the story of his childhood.

We are predisposed to like him because we know he will marry our primary protagonist when he's grown. And then we get to know him and get invested in him for his own sake.

If the new protagonist has a story worth telling you will be fine.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I think the question really boils down to: what/whose story are you trying to tell? And is it a single story? Look at Jim Butcher's Dresden Files stories, for example. Those are almost all centered around the titular Harry Dresden, and he is the POV character for most of the books. The story is his story. Eventually, there are some peripheral characters who get stories, and become the narrator for a time, but it's all in service of telling Harry Dresden's story. And most of the books end with threads left unfinished, so as a reader, I'd be exceptionally annoyed if, when I picked up the next book, I didn't get some amount of closure to the outstanding threads. David Weber's Honor Harrington novels work in the same way. Once the universe is large enough, and some of the peripheral characters have been flushed out enough that the reader starts caring about them as well, switching protagonists is less jarring.

You can compare this to Terry Pratchett's books, which all take place in the same setting, but have many different protagonists. But in his case, when you finish a book, the story is complete. It doesn't mean that everyone is dead, but there aren't outstanding threads to the story. He hasn't introduced a villain who escaped, or some pending disaster that the hero has to solve. The same thing is true of Lois McMaster Bujold's books; again, a shared universe, but each book is a story in itself. While I'm happy to spend more time with a given character, I don't feel like something is incomplete if I don't get to do so. With the next book I read, the story is richer because I've read the other books, but I don't feel I'm missing something if I haven't read the other books.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

To make it work you should distinguish between:

what the story is about (mostly constant, can evolve, but only gradually),
the most relevant person or group (change is plot-driven),
point of view and narrator (unless plot/genere forbids it, you can change any time you want).

To give some examples:

If the story is about how X and Y meet, then you can, in the middle of the book jump to the other character (e.g. The Master and Margarita).
You can also keep the focus of the book constant, but switch points of view even every chapter, if you can make sure the reader knows what happens.
If the book is about some group, then you can focus on a different members (and the group could change over time too).
If the book is about a specific role, then you can change the protagonist every time somebody new takes that role.
Sometimes you can use lead-in character (that is, an extended introduction, but a whole book seems to be way too long for this).

To give an example of evolution:

You start with some character X and the book is about X.
After a few more books you realize that X is not awesome enough by himself or herself, so you make X a leader of some group.
Then some other member Y takes over (esp. if Y was nurtured to be the next leader) and the book is now about the person who leads that group, whoever that is.
The cycle repeats, but now you focus on how the group maintains its identity despite change of leadership. The book is about the group and its dynamics.
Then you introduce more groups and describe their iteractions (e.g., the respective leaders might unite against one common foe) and consequences, similarities and differences, how they mix with outside world. The book is about the community/society in which those groups exist.
And so on...
...all the way to philosophy ;-)

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Ursula K. Le Guin uses a fairly well-tried technique in Earthsea:

Write book 1 about protagonist A
Write book 2 about protagonist B
At some point in book 2, establish how it relates to protagonist A's story.

The essence is that some combination of the world, the story of book 2, and the character of protagonist B, must be strong enough to make book 2 worth reading. It can't survive solely on waiting to find out how it relates to protagonist A, although I suppose you could in theory use B as a false protagonist and return to A.

Le Guin is good at her job, so protagonist A seen through B's POV isn't the same as A from his own POV. It's quite striking that A is not permitted by the author to become the protagonist of B's story.

The protagonist of a novel is not necessarily "the character we like most" or even "the character whose POV we have", it's the character who is questioned and tested, and whose decisions and development are the subject of the novel. So at risk of reducing this too far, you switch protagonists by writing a story in which a new person decides and develops, and the protagonist of the previous novel plays a role in which their decisions and development are not so important for the time being. A's in it, but it's not about A. I would suggest that if you try to make it be about both A and B simultaneously then you risk either muddying the whole thing, or else (like George R.R. Martin) writing several thousand pages more than you intended.

If you skip step 3, so it doesn't relate to protagonist A's story at all, then arguably it's not a series of novels, it's a separate novel in the same setting. Which is also fine.

Now he's suddenly forced to work with this new person, when he is only interested in reading about the old one.

There are always going to be readers who wish their favourite authors would write about something different from what the author has decided to write about, no matter how compelling the new subject. Live with it. Just don't bait-and-switch them by advertising a series as being about protagonist A when actually it isn't!

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

...you decide to change to a new protagonist. The reason isn't important...

I cannot let this pass. The reason is paramount.

If your story is character-driven, switching protagonist probably makes little or no sense, unless the person is killed and someone else has to carry the torch (but it is not the case, I understand).

If your story is plot-driven, you can pick a new protagonist every time the story requires it. It is your story and you can tell it any way you desire.

...George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire even does it every chapter...

Not entirely correct. George R. R. Martin changes to a different character's point of view with every chapter, the number of his protagonists (Jon Snow, Tyrion, Daenerys, Davos) is nowhere near the number of his characters. Yet he does have quite a few and does switch them promptly.

Robin Hobb has over a dozen novels set in the same world with characters, antagonists and protagonists traveling from one story to another, all set over an epic storyline, spanning several decades.

Make all your protagonists worthy of being admired and trust that the reader can keep up.

Absolutely true. Besides that--there are no rules, only the author and the story.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I've seen it more than once. It can be a bit jarring, but it can also work fine. It depends on the plot and the writer.

Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising pentology: the first
book is about three siblings, and then the second book is about
another young man entirely in a different country who has nothing to
do with them. They eventually meet in the third book and books 3
to 5 alternate between their viewpoints. It was confusing at
first, but smoothed out eventually.
Anne McCaffrey's YA Harper Hall trilogy does something similar: Books
1 and 2 are about Menolly, a young girl who has to escape her abusive
home to become a musician, and Piemur is a younger boy who is a
singer whom she meets and befriends. Book 3 is about Piemur's
adventures and Menolly plays little to no role. It works better because McCaffrey set many books in this universe and frequently switches protagonists. Robinton, the Master Harper, is a secondary character in several stories and then eventually got his own origin novel.
Another McCaffrey example in the same universe: Moreta is about a queen dragon rider, while Nerilka's Story is set starting about two-thirds of the way through Moreta and follows someone else's experiences. Each woman is a tertiary character in the other's story.
The Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee: Book 1 is almost a
"history of the future," and books 2 to 4 are more traditional novels
about a family (and are set some years later, IIRC).

So yes, you can do it. Make all your protagonists worthy of being admired and trust that the reader can keep up.

(0)