If only more protagonists were worms

I'm not suggesting that Dan Brown replace Robert Langdon with a spineless creature that aerates soil with its trail of poop. Nor am I suggesting that he try to adapt a computer game into a book for his next blockbuster. 

I do, however, suggest he try something my friend, Nathan, successfully implemented. 

Nathan recently got his first novel, "Chicken Stu" published. Not only is it a wonderfully witty tale with some strong characters, but just when I thought 'this is the climax; the denouement's coming soon', he'd up the ante. And he kept upping the ante. Again and again. And every time the novel reached that new dramatic cliff edge - that moment when I assumed he would throw (what I call) a 'Rowling' at Stu, I was proven wrong. It was brilliant. 

Now before I explain what a 'Rowling' is, let me warn you there are Harry Pothead spoilers to follow. 

In my books, throwing a 'Rowling' translates as giving the main character an easy escape. Exhibit A: "The Philosopher's Stone". In the final climax of the novel, there he was: the boy-who-lived, at the hands of Voldemort, when what saves him? His mother's love!

WTF! What a cop-out! Pothead won that battle on a mere technicality.

On the other hand, Nathan's main character, Stu, didn't have his dead mum there to help him out. Nor was there some ancient magic folklore that kicked in to rescue his hairy arse. All he had were his wits, strength and stubbornness. Nathan treated his protagonist just like a worm: he never once let Stu off the hook. He just kept Stu dangling there in front of all those dangerously hungry fish.

It's a shame there are so few unsympathetic fishermen like Nathan out there, so few authors out there who are willing to REALLY test their  characters. It could be a much better (fictional) world if they did.