OnlineBookClub.org

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 that the protagonist of the story does not have to be an exceptionally good person to be the main character in a book. I believe that his character flaws are important to the plot.

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

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.

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.

diana lowery wrote: ↑01 Jul 2020, 13:48 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.

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.

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.

Technically, he had driven the story very well. He had shown realistic aspects which made him a good protagonist. I love how he had evolved, (though he had stumbled across unfortunate mishaps) and main characters who portrays "too perfect" roles are most likely to be the boring one.

He was actually a very good protagonist. I like character with grey areas and realistic nature. His flaws are what made him much more likeable to me in general.

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.

diana lowery wrote: ↑01 Jul 2020, 13:48 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.

This is a really good point, I think, that sums up this piece well. For me, Grant is not a character I will remember, unlike the Otto Lidenbrock from Journey to the Center of the Earth, a book from which this author seems to get quite a bit of inspiration. He served his purpose in the narrative well, and certainly propelled the plot, but as a character, he was not iconic.

diana lowery wrote: ↑01 Jul 2020, 13:48 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.

I completely agree with this. I think he is likable (and apparently the wolves agree), but perhaps has too many flaws to make his character completely plausible. He’s forgetful, naive, and seems to have a really difficult time catching on to very obvious hints. I had to keep reminding myself that he has a PhD and should be very intelligent.

I agree,

Adrianna Melillo wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 08:20

diana lowery wrote: ↑01 Jul 2020, 13:48 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.

I completely agree with this. I think he is likable (and apparently the wolves agree), but perhaps has too many flaws to make his character completely plausible. He’s forgetful, naive, and seems to have a really difficult time catching on to very obvious hints. I had to keep reminding myself that he has a PhD and should be very intelligent.

I agree, too. In the first part of the book, the author may be carrying the stereotype of the absent-minded professor too far in Grant. This man is incapable of keeping an appointment or taking basic safety precautions. His other character flaws showed up on the trip.
I guess it depends on what you mean by a "good" protagonist.

Just a few notes about Grant:

How many of us know someone who is academically very intelligent but who has less street smarts than they do academic smarts. That is one of Grant's flaws.

Also remember, (and I tried to make it clear in the story) that Zona was a place that was heavily influenced by the vegetative life. The air was imbued with pollen and plant hormones that affected all of the travelers as well as residents. That was what made them all change their behaviors to some degree-Grant a great deal and even Volkov to a lesser amount. That was also the sexual driver that sent many of our travelers spinning out of control romantically (well sexually, at least.)

The science of how new plant hormones would potentially change behaviors is based on the real world in which we already substitute plant based hormones and drugs for their beneficial effects in human physiology. An example is the use of bio-identical plant compounds for human hormone replacement therapies.

What would happen if we found new plants that exuded new and active bio-identical pheromones?

Fred Baker

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.