Is Grant a good protagonist

[Orizon]

I believe the Grant's character is good. The author did a great job in developing this character. I think something more could portray Grant as superhuman.

[David_Kariuki]

Ferdinand_otieno wrote:
> Grant is a likeable character in the beginning of the book when he is
> dedicated to finding his uncle. He shows bravery and dedication while also
> exercising caution in trusting those in the expedition. He however finds
> himself in a sexual relationship with Irina despite his distrust, and she
> was only one of many unwise interactions with women. Despite his unique and
> exciting bond to wolves I found him a subpar protagonist.
> What is your opinion of Grant as a protagonist and why?
I think Grant is a good protagonist,and his flaws actually made the book more interesting for me. I would be a little disappointed if Grant was 'perfect' because it wouldn't be realistic.

[David_Kariuki]

Arimart99 wrote:
> I thought he was a good protagonist overall. I personally prefer it when
> the protagonist isn't perfect because it shows their humanity more and
> makes them more believable as real people.
Quite true, the reality is that people are flawed, and when we see that in Grant,the character is more relatable.

[David_Kariuki]

Andra2005 wrote:
> I think he is a pretty good protagonist, because he is human, he has
> defects but also qualities.
I agree, a good protagonist is relatable. We are able to see this with grant through his flaws.

[David_Kariuki]

Agneeta ode wrote:
> Grant is a good protagonist because he is goal driven,dedicated,brave ,and
> likeable.His weakness as a flirt makes him human and made the story more
> compelling.
I imagine grant without the flaws, he would turn out a bit boring.

[readsbyarun]

In my opinion the story requires a protagonist with a strong personality and character. It doesn't necessarily require to be wither a good one or a bad one. In this case I consider him to be a good protagonist as he has a stable way of thinking and he was in position to differentiate what is good and what is bad.

[readsbyarun]

Carennkemdiala wrote:
> I think the author did a good job in depicting the character of Grant. He
> perfectly streamlined his lifestyle with our everyday life. The fact that
> he started out pretty well in the beginning and ended not too well towards
> the end doesn’t make him weak, rather it makes him perfectly human.
> Personally, I loved Grant’s heroic role in the book.
I agree to your views. ~It doesn't really matters wither being good or bad but how the impact is made in the story is all that matters.

[Dannyphery]

I think he's a good protagonist.
I love how the author didn't make him look perfect, there were still flaws which is common to human.

[simplybyjenn]

I think Grant is a good protagnist as the reader can connect with him because you can see the positives in him but also see the weaknesses and flaws within him as well which make him more relatable. I know many are saying that he has too many flaws even though he has a PhD. but I know many people who have this degree but can still seem unintelligent at times. Soemtimes the smartest people can be the dumbest in the room due to getting stuck in their intelligence and knowledge and not connecting to the real world and those around them.

[jdsatosk]

diana lowery wrote:
> 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.
Ah! This is one of the things that turns me off of a character! I see from the other comments that perhaps there is another book coming out, so maybe there is a change or growth coming for this character.
The most disappointing reads to me are the ones where the main characters don’t really grow.

[Odette Chace]

I found Grant a bit irritating while reading because he was so absent-minded and dense. Then, when he became a philanderer, I was fed up with him as a character, haha. However, he works as a protagonist because even if he doesn't put all the pieces together, he is exceptionally observant.

[SeasonalBuddy]

Yes. I think he is a great protagonist. He is relatable and the struggles he faces are caused by human weaknesses

[SeasonalBuddy]

The_Vivian wrote:
> I think he is a good person who had flaws. But that's what shows the
> humanity in him because at the end of the day as humans we all have our
> weaknesses but they do not define us. His character was captivating till
> the end.

I agree that his weaknesses only show human behaviour at its best. Therefore making him a great protagonist.

[Ada Ling]

Leen282 wrote:
> I think he's a good protagonist. He's human, with good sides and flaws like
> any person.

I have same opinion here. He is a real person. So he has his courage, needs and fear.

[Lilyflower-x2]

Carennkemdiala wrote:
> I think the author did a good job in depicting the character of Grant. He
> perfectly streamlined his lifestyle with our everyday life. The fact that
> he started out pretty well in the beginning and ended not too well towards
> the end doesn’t make him weak, rather it makes him perfectly human.
> Personally, I loved Grant’s heroic role in the book.


That is true. It's the fact that he made mistakes that shows he is human and makes him relatable.