In The Modern Publishing Landscape, These Days, I Think Like We Do Not Have Many (if Any) Point-of-view

In the modern publishing landscape, these days, I think like we do not have many (if any) point-of-view characters with low social motivation for whatever reason.

Sure, there are lots of characters with social anxiety or other perceived or legitimate foibles to overcome, there are many YA villain origin stories, and there are many unpalatable, traditionally "unlikable" men in classics, but disregarding those, who else do we have?

Can the state of openly being alone (and content) rarely be presented as morally-neutral or as the end result of a narrative? Must it always be that either being alone is the starting point, so there's room for "personal growth," or that being alone is seen as "undesirable" and/or an indication that the person alone has a "problem" or something otherwise wrong with them, like a deficit or moral failing that in some kind of karmic way gives them "what they deserve," which is being alone and discontent with it?

Characters with society anxiety, any differences in communication, or other reasons that interfere with forging connections "don't count" because they may still be motivated. Traits such as these only stand in the way of gaining relationships, as plot obstacles. They aren't intrinsically tied to indifference or to low motivation. So, these characters clearly are not experiencing a lack of interest. And they are not the ones rejecting others. Thus, they "don't count" as far as the archetype that I'm looking for goes.

Characters who undergo villain arcs or otherwise negative arcs may want to maintain their relationships or gain them, so some examples are immediately disqualified (hence not having low social motivation), even if they are the type of character most likely to alienate themselves by a story's end, conflicting with what they wanted.

(Unfortunately, Coriolanus Snow, who is quite close to the type of protagonist I'm searching for "doesn't count" because he has some drive to keep people in his life.

Rafal Mistral partially "counts," and is satisfying as a character, but also doesn't count because he temporarily makes "friends" or allies, depending on how you look at his exploits. Yet, despite all this, not having friends isn't exactly framed as a morally-neutral state either, so he is also disqualified by the end. Basically, he does have low social motivation, but his narrative lacks the conditions that would make the natural consequences of that low motivation play out for themselves. He is always surrounded by people, even if he hates every last one of them.

And, generally speaking, the usual, moody-broody, "misunderstood" YA love-interests very easily "don't count" because they have a desire to get closer to their object of affection.

Even Katniss Everdeen, an overall good person, who usually views herself as "unlikable," befriends others, originally for pragmatic, survival purposes. However, she does start with low social motivation, so that's something in her favor.

And yes, I'm aware that we need other people in this world—I would just like to see someone prove that supposed truth wrong once. And perhaps succeed in their world, if that's not too much to ask for.)

Also, are there any instances of characters who progressively alienate themselves from others, in which that progression is not inherently seen as negative? Like, what about non-corrupt misanthropes? Are there few of those in literature? (Maybe—Eleanor Oliphant from literary fiction counts, but something about that book did not appeal me and I didn't finish it.)

Classics guys sort of "count," but I haven't really seen examples of any comparable protagonists today since many authors and readers write and look for "relatability" in blank slate everyman figures oftentimes.

(I'm not done with Crime and Punishment yet, but Raskolnikov is very tentatively looking like a safe bet for a character who may end up alone and who may not be completely malcontent over such a fate, even if I'm expecting tragedy. I'm that not far along, but I also wouldn't mind it too greatly if he died, I suppose.

And even Sherlock Holmes has Watson as his constant, even if he's notoriously asocial! So he "doesn't count" either.

Carol from Main Street also comes close, but still ultimately desires approval from others.

Maybe no one is truly immune to humanity and I should give up on this notion?)

How many pov characters out there are 1) apathetic toward the masses and 2a) either alienate themselves as the plot progresses or 2b) do not make any friends? (I will allow them making friends and consequently losing them though because that still ends in net zero!)

Indeed, this "gap" in protagonists I've been running into lately, especially with coming-of-age arcs and protagonists whose arc is some form of "getting out of their shell," is: why do we (almost?) never see protagonists who just flat-out don't progress in terms of connecting with fellow humans?

Wouldn't having even a handful of those types be reflective of reality? (We as a society are more disconnected than ever, to be fair, despite constantly having access to one another via technology.)

Or I would completely understand it, if it were narratively impractical to have a plot in which a protagonist makes zero friends. Maybe, it's a near-unwritable form for a story?

So, my question is: does anyone have book recommendations, which present a character whose end goal is not to make friends or forge connections (any other ambitions or motivations are fine) and whose state of being friendless both lasts and is regarded as morally-neutral or as not outright evil? Any genre is fine. High fantasy is preferable. I am stumped.

(I also wouldn't mind recommendations of books in which the protagonist is vilified due to being alone, even if that is not my primary query here.)

HAH! I love this! Also, the coattails on Rafal's ghost—I love their poses at the end! And what's the last panel of? Agatha and some object?

AIQPQMWXJXHAOAOQHZN

this audio reminded me of them if rafal was like a ghost and randomly appeared during tlea lol

also the proportions are like NOT the best but i think it's too late to fix😔

Both are adorable!!!

✨️Bottled souls of the twin School Masters✨️

I have no idea how to fix the camera quality, they never focus on the right thing 😭

On that note, some other things of the same topic

Bottled Wish Fish eggs

👇I dunno 😂

I wonder what other potions in SGE could be cool to make?

How many languages do u speak??

English is my first language and Spanish is my second. However, I'm not entirely fluent in Spanish, even if I understand the vast majority of what's spoken to me. Yet that generally applies to more casual discussion because I find it hard to write academically in Spanish. Once I wrote a really brief, simple screenplay scene though. That's probably the most I can do currently. Plus, I suspect my Spanish is passively going in a retrograde direction since then because I haven't used it that frequently and it needs maintenance. If I am exposed to Italian, I can understand some singular words here and there (probably because of cognates or near-cognates), but that's it.

I don't think it counts as a language as it's more of a dialect, but I am able to read Middle English (ME). Except, I rely heavily on Norton Critical Edition annotations, so it may not truly count. (Fun fact: Shakespeare is classified as New English (NE or our modern English), which shocked me when I first heard it.)

Oh, and I kind of want a second opinion on something, so I may as well put it out here: is learning Latin worth it? You see, I wish I could just... acquire it, as another language, because I want to be able to get all the references John Milton (and some others) make if I ever read more of his works, so I could feel "hyperliterary," like what I've been told about the lens with which he saw the world. Then again, the annotations are enough for me to get certain words' provenance, or why one word was a significant choice over another, so I feel like it would be useless otherwise.

Probably, the first, the man who engendered the conditions for this phrase (or warning to Evers) to be born: Fall Rhian, with the Pirate Captain, Hephaestus, and the Kingdom Council -> "Only the best Evil can disguise as Good."

I mean, when else have we seen the "appearance versus reality" theme predate the moment Rhian started stringing people along and mucking up Rafal's already filthy reputation via word of mouth (as early as Fall, not even the main series with Rafal's face)? "Rabid Bear Rex" and other tales from the prequel time didn't seem to involve the same level of trickery or disguise, I'm assuming?

And we don't know if "Finola the Fairy-Eater" (one of Lady Lesso's favorites, I think) came along later, during another generation, so the trickery and disguise there could've been inspired by Rhian (not that anyone knew the true outcome of the Great War, but the general notion may've been passed down, about Evil being subtle above all else).

EDIT: I misremembered/made a mistake. Some instances of Evil in disguise did predate Rhian and "Finola the Fairy-Eater" was mentioned in Rise. However, Rhian and the Great War did (of course) have had the most impact and most enduring consequences, compared to those smaller tales with lesser billing, which still leaves the possibility open that the Great War and the uncertain end result of who the victor was might've been the event to coin the phrase (if anyone shared August Sader's theory that the Evil brother won, contrary to popular belief).

Also, does anyone remember who first said that line on disguise? Was it Arthur's advice to first-year Tedros? And another question that remains was whether it was told to Arthur by someone else.

Why do you think Rhian was so clingy to Rafal?.

What's your opinion on Rhian seeing Rafal as this flawless person?.

And what do you think upsets him so badly?.

Me personally there's not enough information for me to think Rhian was born evil, or Rafal truly 'pure' good.

I just don't see it.

Rhian's clinginess could be explained any unknown reason, really. I think the most "accurate" one is that Rafal fulfilled a parent/caretaker/savior role for his brother for so long that Rhian became more and more (overly) attached to and dependent on him over time. And with Rafal, in truth, that burgeoning reliance could've all been by design, meaning we can't wholly fault Rhian.

I don't believe Rhian sees Rafal as a flawless person, even if he may have looked up to him like he did Vulcan-like, villainous men, or considering how he ended up assuming Rafal's identity. While he does struggle with insecurity or feelings of inferiority in the face of Rafal's questionably "better" points of "superiority," Rhian also has exhibited arrogance due to having the moral high ground (in Rise) and has, at times, viewed himself as the superior brother as well. Rhian has also directly criticized Rafal at certain moments, so I think his somewhat recurrent comments, like whenever he thinks about the nature of Evil or corruption in Rise, would suggest the opposite of viewing Rafal as flawless. If anything, he's definitely aware Rafal is deeply flawed, but still remains alternately envious and disdainful regardless. It's more than likely that Rhian's (probably initial and later redeveloped in Fall) image of who Rafal is in his mind doesn't quite align with who Rafal is objectively.

I think Rhian was upset by a multitude of factors. Some include the perceived inferiority around Rafal, excessive competition on a larger scale in the environment he could never escape, and being repeatedly hurt by others and taken advantage of, to the point he decided to become his "abusers," some amalgamation of everyone who ever wronged him, to prove them wrong, that he wasn't willing to take anymore ill-treatment.

Yes, I view them as morally-grey. Their actions (and even "impure thoughts") disqualify them from truly being "pure."