OnlineBookClub.org

I think he makes a great protagonist and his weaknesses Are a testament to this.

Many times i could relate to this human element and empathise

Topsey wrote:
> [quote="diana lowery" post_id=1448771 time=1593629311
> user_id=1202329]
> He is a "good" protagonist in that he is what drives the story;
> however, he is a weak character who gets even weaker as the story
> progresses.
> [/quote]
>
> Yes you’re exactly right. He is a good protagonist because he completes his
> role as a driving force in the novel. I think that the choice to have him
> become weaker as the story progresses in a interesting one. I think he
> embodies what many would fail to recognise in themselves by having flaws
> and growing weakness in the face of prolonged adversity.

He did become weaker as the book progressed but isn't that the case in most humans? We start strong with a clear vision of the finish line, only to slowly lose strength and sight of the end goal due to challenges encountered along the way.

A good protagonist doesn't have to depict the best character or judgement. Only a relatable kind of behaviour which Grant has in spades.

A good protagonist? Well, this is a story and Grant is only human enough as the main character. He will definitely not be all good as a character. So for me, he did just fine according to the story.

Grant is a good protagonist. He's just like every other human out there with flaws and reasonable human weaknesses. I believe that the author did a really good job while characterizing Grant.

He is a good protagonist. He represents a real trait of who we are. Our strengths and weaknesses.

Raising the question about Grant's role as a good protagonist shows he actually is because he didn't fit the usual stereotype of a protagonist's balance of flaw and character.

Yes, Grant is a good protagonist. He starts out very well but we have to forgive his getting weaker as the story progresses. He is only human with his share of flaws just like the rest of us. And having to go through prolonged periods of hardship can weaken even the best of us.

He is a good protagonist, yes. To err is human. Sometimes, some flaws makes a character more realistic. Character flaws paves way to character development. The character arc doesn't necessarily make him weak. It makes him human.

I agree he is.The fact that he and the expedition team get together to look for his missing Uncle shows that he is like any other human being who is concerned. Every human being have got their own weaknesses and him having some shows that his character is excellent for this book.

Well, even though he seems to be weak, I still think he's a good protagonist

I think he is a good protagonist. His flaws are part of him and make him relevant as a moving character!

Grant is a good protagonist because a combination of good sides and flaws was unpredictable and I think it made the book more interesting

yapashley wrote: ↑09 Jul 2020, 08:19 I think we've somehow given our main protagonists a standard. We accept them flawed but we want them to accept their flaws and show character development. This is what everyone wishes not only any character of a book to be but we, individuals, as well.

True. But literature is often a reflection of society. So I wonder, if in the real world, many individuals do not show this character development we hope for, then doesn't it give a book a realistic effect if a protagonist falls short of that expectation?

I think Grant is a good protagonist. He was determined at first to find his uncle. He makes mistakes on the way but that's quite understandable because humans makes mistakes. And that should not make him a bad protagonist.