How to make a character different from, but not better than, the MC

[srebak]

Here's the deal, i've watched and read about quite a few shows in my day, and in some of them, i've noticed a similar concept: when there's more than one main character (like, say, one boy and one girl), there's usually one character that possesses a personality trait that the main character does not. Sometimes it's more maturity or a more level-head, other times it's more knowledge about a certain threat or occurrence. Now, when they offer an explanation behind it, it's hard to say i don't see why this was made the case. But even so, when another character is made to look superior to the MC in someway, it just feels wrong somehow. Maybe it's because i myself don't like it when someone knows something that i don't or can do something i can't, i don't know, but regardless, it's something that i'd rather not have in my stories.

So i ask again, how do i make different characters... well, different, without having one overshadowing the others in some way?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Different people will have varying levels of interest in different characters so I don't worry much about one character overshadowing another. My concern is that they're all interesting. That effect can be enhanced by making them as distinct as possible.

Looking at a hypothetical cast, if I had two characters essentially performing the same role, I'd likely cut one or merge the two together.

An interesting character can be a downright bastard. Heck, I don't even have to like them for them to be interesting. In that regard, a hero type might be more likable or better at most activities (or have a more amenable personality, level head, etc.) than the bastard anti-hero in the same story, but I still could have equal levels of interest in their stories.

Just make them distinct & interesting.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with everything T.Allen.Smith says above. And it when it comes down to questions of overshadowing, ensure that your main character is the one driving the plot/action. Other characters may complement her or make up for her deficiencies, but if your main character is driving the plot the secondary characters shouldn't overshadow the main.

 

[N.S.Griffiths]

Ideally, I think each character should be performing some distinct role in your tale. As Steerpike said, the main character should be the one driving the plot, but no character is an island, so to speak, and so the secondary characters should be performing their own tasks/roles/etc.

Say your MC is a pleb who has some mystical destiny, but is of a fairly young age, and xir mentor figure is double xir's age, and therefore has more wisdom, maturity, experience, etc. For each of those three -wisdom, maturity, experience- there is a flip side, a flaw.

With wisdom could come the propensity not to be practical, or to get caught up in the details without seeing the bigger picture properly.
With maturity could come excessive caution, for example waiting too long to 'see what happens' before making a move, thus missing an important opportunity.
With experience could come too much pride and a lack of valuing the opinions of those who have other ways of doing things, or complacency - eg, I've always done it this way and it's always worked, so why not now? - or even mild tyranny - you will do this because I say so and I'm your elder and I know best!

I think the best way to avoid SCs overshadowing the MC is to make sure that for every trait they have that could potentially overshadow, they have a corresponding flaw that makes said trait redundant in certain situations. That kind of adds to what T.Allen.Smith said, too. Flaws in otherwise superiority makes characters real and interesting, and adds to your story. No one likes a perfect charrie, be they main or secondary.

 

[Shine Magical]

You can give them different interests, political views, emotional states, slightly different ways of talking--

 

[Terry Greer]

Everything said so far is good.

Flaws do make for interesting characters - and it's fun balancing characters with others that compensate for those flaws (with flaws of their own for the main character to fix).

I remember reading somewhere that the triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and mccoy in the original Star Trek was brought about by basically taking a single 'super protagonist' and splitting them into 3 separate characters so the different aspects of them could each have their own flaws and react and debate between them.

I can see that - and I think it works rather well allowing Spock to be scientific and logical but lacking in empathy and insight, Mccoy to be all things medical and touchy-feely but unable to visualize the big picture. While Kirk gets to take advice from both but can tread his own path with composite ideas that neither of the other two would come up with on their own. He also gets to be decisive and in command without him being seen as lacking in any respect.

This only works because the characters are so well defined - but it works well.

It also has the advantage that you can more easily see and stage a dramatic debate on a course of action without it just being an internal monologue.

 

[hunter830]

Echoing what others have said I feel its more important to worry about making each character distinct and interesting than worrying about whether they overshadow each other. The Spock, McCoy, Kirk example is a wonderful illustration of having each character have their own distinct place in the world.