Best Supporting Character--Nominations Closed

[Jean]

Now I am lost... how do we define supporting characters? I thought ka-tet (here or in The Stand or in It) were protagonists?

[Daghain]

I would think Roland would be the protagonist, and the ka-tet supporting characters.

[Ves'Ka Gan]

All my first thoughts have been thirded by now...but I will be back.

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I'd like to third Chris Chambers (I totally fell in love with him back when I was 12) but it's already been done.

[Sam]

I would like to nominate Mother Abigail.

[Aaron]

Now I am lost... how do we define supporting characters? I thought ka-tet (here or in The Stand or in It) were protagonists?

The members of Roland's ka-tet were supporting characters, mainly because none of them were written as protagonists throughout the entire series. Eddie and Susannah werent even in the first book, and Jake wasmostly absent in the second book. Both of the first two books clearly centered on Roland alone. So I would say that they are very strong supporting characters, but supporting just the same.

Now in the case of the characters from IT, they were written as protagonists. Most of them, at least. Stan was only supporting, mainly because he offed himself in the present-tense of the story early on. All of the other losers would be protagonists, in my opinion. Since the story is still a coherent chronology from start to finish as told and experienced from their point of view. It is one of the unique beauties of the novel.

In The Stand I would have to say Stu and Larry are the only ones written as protagonists for the duration of the entire novel, though I am not saying that is law for the purposes of the awards. I am willing to hear anyone who would like to make a case otherwise. Frannie and Nick were close to being protagonists, but they werent parts of the final stand. And the others who were a part of the final stand weren't major players in the story until the Boulder Free Zone storyline commenced.

But I am very glad that it was brought up. These are just my opinions. That's part of why the thread is here--so that we can discuss the rationale for these choices. Thanks, Jean. 8)

[John_and_Yoko]

That could almost be its own thread right there, what constitutes a protagonist vs. a supporting character. Of course, it's probably more obvious in King's non-epic works, and you pretty much covered the works for which it might be more ambiguous.

But I like how you've been thinking it through, and having read all of those I have to say I agree with you. The closest I might come to disagreeing is by saying that Stu is clearly more of a protagonist than Larry, but then Bill is clearly more of a protagonist than the other Losers, as well. I guess it's just a matter of "stronger protagonist" like you mentioned "strong supporting characters." In other words, the "strong protagonists" are LITERALLY there RIGHT at the beginning and end, as Stu and Bill were.

Also, Frannie and Nick are arguably established as protagonists from the start, along with Stu and Larry although

Spoiler:

Nick is arguably a "false protagonist," since he dies in Part II, before Part III even begins. Same for Stanley Uris in IT--he's established thus from the start, but then kills himself at the end of his introductory scene, and only appears in the memories of the other characters flashing back to the past story (hence not a protagonist). Getting back to The Stand, though, Frannie remains alive, but as you say, she doesn't really do all that much (being pregnant might have something to do with it, but still).

So I guess you're right in declaring only Stu and Larry protagonists. The only argument there would be that

Spoiler:

Larry dies in the climax and thus doesn't see the denouement--which also holds for Eddie in IT. I personally would still count them as protagonists, but someone might make that argument that they're not.

Otherwise, it might be argued that Mike Hanlon isn't a protagonist by your definition, since

Spoiler:

he doesn't face IT with the others at the end, not as an adult. Then again, he does as a kid, and he INTENDED to do so as an adult, but was prevented from it.

I think Mike's situation is comparable to Stu's in The Stand, so maybe you're right after all in saying Mike is a protagonist--besides, he is the "voice" of the Losers' club, the chronicler of their efforts and Derry's history.

Spoiler:

On the other hand, one could also argue the other way, that since Stu doesn't actually make it, he isn't a "real" protagonist, but by that logic maybe you'd have to consider Frodo to not be the protagonist of The Lord of the Rings, and who wants to argue that?

In sum, I do agree with your assessments, just that Stu and Bill are "PRIMARY" protagonists, while Larry and the other Losers are "secondary protagonists."

[Randall Flagg]

Second Eddie. Third Oy

[Randall Flagg]

Nominate Cort

[LadyHitchhiker]

I fourth Wolf.

[jayson]

I'll second Cort. Good one RF!

[Darkthoughts]

Stone - you can fourth Chris Chambers, I think people can second, third etc as much as they like

[LadyHitchhiker]

I would like to second Mother Abigail.

[Brice]

I'll third Cort and Mother Abigail.

[Jean]

Aaron: maybe "Protagonist" is just a word that is too demanding. I know, for example, opinions (from some .net discussions) that deny to Roland the right to be called protagonist of this story at all; also, if we define him as someone who walks the book from the beginning to the end, we would absolutely lose the difference between, say, Susannah, Callahan and Aaron Deepneau, and would have to vote for only one of these last, although their contribution to the story is substantially different, and thus the mastery with wich they are developed shows different faucets of Mr.King's talent. I personally see at least three circles of characters in all King book: the main - the secondary (or not-so-main, or whatever) - the episodic (minor); thus, on the example of the DT we would have: Roland & the ka-tet - Susan & Callahan& - Lady Talitha & Ben Slightman.

[John_and_Yoko]

Aaron: maybe "Protagonist" is just a word that is too demanding. I know, for example, opinions (from some .net discussions) that deny to Roland the right to be called protagonist of this story at all; also, if we define him as someone who walks the book from the beginning to the end, we would absolutely lose the difference between, say, Susannah, Callahan and Aaron Deepneau, and would have to vote for only one of these last, although their contribution to the story is substantially different, and thus the mastery with wich they are developed shows different faucets of Mr.King's talent. I personally see at least three circles of characters in all King book: the main - the secondary (or not-so-main, or whatever) - the episodic (minor); thus, on the example of the DT we would have: Roland & the ka-tet - Susan & Callahan& - Lady Talitha & Ben Slightman.

Wait--I'm confused.

First you say Susannah is a secondary character, then you say the ka-tet are "main" characters, and then you say that SUSAN is a secondary character....

*is confused*

[Jean]

No. I never said Susannah was a secondary character. I said if we put Roland, and only him, in the "protagonist" category, we'll have to make no difference between the characters who are, to my mind, at such different levels of importance as Susannah, Callahan, and Aaron Deepneau. That is why I suggested disposing of the "protagonist" idea altogether and introducing the three-level system instead.

[John_and_Yoko]

No. I never said Susannah was a secondary character. I said if we put Roland, and only him, in the "protagonist" category, we'll have to make no difference between the characters who are, to my mind, at such different levels of importance as Susannah, Callahan, and Aaron Deepneau. That is why I suggested disposing of the "protagonist" idea altogether and introducing the three-level system instead.

Ah, okay, I gotcha now.

Sorry, it was the similar-sounding names plus the mention of Callahan after them both that confused me....

[Randall Flagg]

Jean, WADR, I don't think this thread is intended for nominations, not deep debate.
Aaron defined it rather well.

[Aaron]

The three-tiered system works as a generalization, but in the majority of King's books there is a very clear protagonist. I do agree that it is tough to pin for the DT series, but Roland definitely stands alone in his own tier above that of his ka-tet. A good example of this is that

DTVII Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Roland is the only one in the loop.

Another good way to designate the protagonist is that the story wouldnt exist without them. While the story might not have been as good without Eddie, Jake, Susannah, or Oy, it could still continue, because the story is Roland's quest for the Tower. Whereas without Roland, none of these characters would have ever even known there was a Tower.

[Woofer]

Nominating Nick Andros for secondary in light of Aaron's posts.

(Aaron, is that okay? I had originally nominated him for protagonist since I feel The Stand has multiple protagonists.)

[Aaron]

Yeah, totally. Nick started as one of the protagonists for sure, but since he died two-thirds of the way into the book he doesnt really meet the full requirements. I would say he is a great pick for best supporting.

[Randall Flagg]

second Nick

[Hannah]

Can I nominate Speedy - from Talisman? I always had a fondness for him.

[fernandito]

Nominating John Edward Marinville from Desperation.