Reactive and Proactive Characters

MDei · Jul 24, 2009

I kow. We've had just about every conversation in the world that has to do with our characters, but I was just wondering what the nature of your character is. I've seen very reactive character who wait for something to happen and then act and proactive characters who see something about to happen and want to nip it in the bud.

My heroine in one of my wips is reactive. And I realized that when I made a mistake and tried to make her proactive, but it just wasn't working. It was like she was bored or something.

Then I realized, well she can't do this because she reacts to everything. I mean that in a way that as a heroine, she's prone to let the villian get by and won't really do anything until she sees the situation getting way out of hand. And that's how she wants it. It justifies her... extreme and unusual punishments.

So I wanted to know what your thoughts were on this. Are your characters reactive or proactive? Why or why not? Have you ever made a mistake in trying to make them the opposite of what they are? Are your characters a mixture of both?

Ruth2 · Jul 24, 2009

Now that's something to think about. My female MC is reactive, but she's been through hell and back, and I'm not sure if she'd have normally been reactive or Life just bludgeoned her into submission. My male MC is proactive--- oh yeah. Esp. when it comes to my female MC.

I think they're a mix but she's heavy on the reactive and he's heavy on the proactive.

Lisa Cox · Jul 24, 2009

My MCs are forced into the conflict at the beginning and deal with it, so I suppose that's reactive. But after that they plan and plot and get on with sorting the conflict out, so that's proactive?

I didn't really give it much thought. I guess I just thought a character who went out and dealt with the problems was more interesting than a character who waited for the problems to come to her. That was actually one of the reasons I scrapped my old WIP -- everything was happening *to* the characters and they were just doing their best to get out of it. And there was no way around it in that particular story. I didn't enjoy it at all.

MDei · Jul 24, 2009

lisamarie84x said:
My MCs are forced into the conflict at the beginning and deal with it, so I suppose that's reactive. But after that they plan and plot and get on with sorting the conflict out, so that's proactive?

I didn't really give it much thought. I guess I just thought a character who went out and dealt with the problems was more interesting than a character who waited for the problems to come to her. That was actually one of the reasons I scrapped my old WIP -- everything was happening *to* the characters and they were just doing their best to get out of it. And there was no way around it in that particular story. I didn't enjoy it at all.

So this brings up a new question. Which one do you think is better?

Kenzie · Jul 24, 2009

My protagonist is very much reactive. In fact, she is passive. Which is more or less a writing sin, but it is a very important part of her character that she is passive. It's a bit of a conundrum as far as writing rules goes.

So this brings up a new question. Which one do you think is better?

The age-old answer I suppose - it depends on the story.

Lisa Cox · Jul 24, 2009

Which one do you think is better?

I'm going to find that impossible to answer. It all depends on the nature of the story and, I think, the genre. Contemporary dramas probably deal with reactive characters more than proactive, where as fantasy -- with all the quests and the like -- is more proactive.

Some of the 'quieter' stories work best with reactive characters. Proactive for action-based novels. Etc.

Roger J Carlson · Jul 24, 2009

Kenzie said:
My protagonist is very much reactive. In fact, she is passive. Which is more or less a writing sin, but it is a very important part of her character that she is passive. It's a bit of a conundrum as far as writing rules goes.

The age-old answer I suppose - it depends on the story.

Possibly.

But when you get feedback from a publisher that says: "I can't publish this because the MC is reactive rather than proactive" (which I have), you have to consider whether you are writing the story for you or for publication.

NeuroFizz · Jul 24, 2009

Most people are reactive on some issues or toward some events and proactive on/toward others. Your job as a writer is to establish your character to such a depth that the reader will understand the character's motivations, responses, and limits for being reactive or proactive. Rarely does a person fit this classification in an either-or way. It should be the same with our characters.

Ruth2 · Jul 24, 2009

I'm working toward having my female MC change from reactive to proactive. Not in everything but --gee, y'know? It'd be nice if she developed some cojones along the way. And I don't mean she's totally passive but a little more balance would be better and more realistic.

My male MC is probably right where he should be in the reactive/proactive mix.

Danthia · Jul 24, 2009

The problem with reactive characters is that they don't drive the plot. They aren't trying to do anything, or achieve anything, they're just reacting to what is being done to them. It's that's sense of trying to accomplish something that drives a novel, from an action-packed genre novel to a softer internal journey literary novel. The protag is after something. If they're not, then why are we reading about them? Stories are about interesting people solving interesting problems in interesting ways.

If your characters are reactive, try to give them a goal to keep your plot moving. Even in horror movies where the bad guy is causing everyone to react to what he does, the characters are still trying to achieve something -- survive. They have a goal and high stakes making them act in some way. Maybe your character is trying hard not to get involved, but gets sucked in anyway, which is a conflict to their goal of not getting involved.

Others may disagree, but I strongly feel that if your protagonist isn't trying to accomplishing something in the story to drive it, you'll have a lot of trouble crafting a marketable novel. It can be a subtle, internal thing, but it has to have some goal.

lenore_x · Jul 24, 2009

I tend to write characters who start out passive and, through character development, learn to take control. I think the key to pulling this off is to demonstrate immediately that the character does have some kind of inner strength.

And yeah, it's true that a protagonist absolutely needs some kind of motivation. The forms that takes aren't necessarily going to be straightforward, though. ("Cast the ring into Mount Doom" versus "Try to get over the death of my brother.")

Roger J Carlson · Jul 24, 2009

lenore_x said:
I tend to write characters who start out passive and, through character development, learn to take control. I think the key to pulling this off is to demonstrate immediately that the character does have some kind of inner strength.

And yeah, it's true that a protagonist absolutely needs some kind of motivation. The forms that takes aren't necessarily going to be straightforward, though. ("Cast the ring into Mount Doom" versus "Try to get over the death of my brother.")

The MC I was reffered to earlier did that as well. He started out passive, reactive, and something of a whiner, and grew into a proactive, dymamic character. The problem was the publisher read only the first three chapters, dismissed the character as reactive, and passed on the book.

Remember this: first-readers are looking for reasons to reject a book, not to accept it. It makes reading the slush-pile faster. It's a really good idea not to give then any reason for doing so.

One solution for this is to have a dynamic secondary character who can drive the story until the main character grows up.

MDei · Jul 24, 2009

You're right Danthia, the character does need a motivation. A reactive character obviously has motivation because they need it to react. I think it also depends on what drove the story in the first place. I don't think one is better than the other, but I do think what you're describing is more of a passive character. A reactive character isn't passive. There is something that drives them, something that drives them to react, whether it's survival, a sense of justice or duty, or trying not to get involved.

NeuroFizz · Jul 24, 2009

I think there is some confusion here about reactive and proactive personalities and passive and active personalities. These are two very different things.

If there is a conflict and someone pushes on me, and I put the person down, I'm being reactive but hardly passive. Many, if not most, of our actions are driven by reactions to events in our lives. A truely proactive person will need a quality crystal ball--I've never been able to find one that good. And motivation for doing something meaningful (or heroic) isn't a property of only proactive personalities. Even the most stereotypical librarian-type will have motivations that will drive behavior. And I'll strongly disagree that a reactive person can't drive plot, unless reactive is being used as a synonym for passive. But even passive characters can drive plot, it just takes more finesse.

Keep in mind that this is yet another example of making a dichotomy out of something that is hardly black-and-white.

LOG · Jul 24, 2009

The line between reactive and proactive isn't very clear-cut. Both are actions, whether the characters go out looking for trouble, or wait for it to come to them, wouldn't really matter to me. Both are just ways of moving the story along. In the long run, it will likely make very little difference, if any, the type of action your character has. Instead, it will be how they handle their actions that people will examine.

J. Koyanagi · Jul 24, 2009

Generally, I prefer proactive characters. I cheer them on and hold my breath for them, whereas primarily reactive characters often leave me wondering why I'm going to care about what happens.

I struggled a bit with this in my current WIP because one of the circumstances my MC is in leaves her with few proactive options. Ultimately, she is, and I love her for it.

gonovelgo · Jul 24, 2009

Danthia said:
The problem with reactive characters is that they don't drive the plot. They aren't trying to do anything, or achieve anything, they're just reacting to what is being done to them. It's that's sense of trying to accomplish something that drives a novel, from an action-packed genre novel to a softer internal journey literary novel. The protag is after something. If they're not, then why are we reading about them? Stories are about interesting people solving interesting problems in interesting ways.

I ran into this problem with my WIP. One of my character is essentially forced to be reactive due to his circumstances, which I quickly realized would put some readers off. So I gave him more minor goals and decision - sure, he can't run off to adventure (until later), but he can decide how to interact with the people around him and respond to a minor antagonist.

In general, I'd agree with you - proactive characters drive the plot. They don't have to be making grand gestures and leading armies into battle every chapter, but they do have to be doing something that isn't just a reaction to someone else.

The Lonely One · Jul 24, 2009

NeuroFizz said:
Most people are reactive on some issues or toward some events and proactive on/toward others. Your job as a writer is to establish your character to such a depth that the reader will understand the character's motivations, responses, and limits for being reactive or proactive. Rarely does a person fit this classification in an either-or way. It should be the same with our characters.

Yes. My MC reacts initially to the death of his friend, then proactively seeks his killer, and in a way creates his own conflicts to overcome (they wouldn't exist without his taking this road or that).

So, I would say mainly proactive but certainly reactive in his motivation for the whole thing.

bettielee · Jul 24, 2009

I've got two reactive characters in mine:

One: a rank and filer who waits for the bosses to make the big decisions, then something comes along that involves his daughter and her mom, who he's been estranged from, and he jumps in an takes charge

Two: He's a young boy who's a bit of a sheep. The story is about him getting some of those cajones - and I realise he is way too wimpy. His angst-ometer is going up in the rewrite!!

My main, main characters are proactive, so I've got the gamut covered, and I feel these wishy washy guys and their development drive the story, but they are secondary for the most part.

Claudia Gray · Jul 24, 2009

I agree that most characters are a mixture of reactive and proactive -- and that if your characters don't experience anything powerful/surprising enough to cause them to react, there's not really a story there. The trick, I suppose, is making sure the balance in them favors being proactive, and that the characters gradually become more proactive as the story continues.

lenore_x · Jul 24, 2009

Roger J Carlson said:
One solution for this is to have a dynamic secondary character who can drive the story until the main character grows up.

Absolutely! I can't do without an interesting ensemble cast.

Also thought I'd throw in that I'm reading a brilliant fantasy book right now in which the protagonist starts out very passive -- I think the key is that she knows she's passive; she's reflective and senses this problem about herself, so there's that "show inner strength immediately" factor I referred to earlier. We know the character wants to change; we want to root for her. She's very likeable. But I personally am drawn to meek underdog types.

katiemac · Jul 24, 2009

My MC is fairly reactive, like others have said, in the beginning. But I have another character, very proactive, who drives the plot along and takes my MC (unwillingly) with her. The problem I'm currently struggling with, actually, is that defining moment that's going to force my MC to grow up a bit and take control. He doesn't really want to.

Danthia · Jul 24, 2009

NeuroFizz said:
I think there is some confusion here about reactive and proactive personalities and passive and active personalities. These are two very different things.

If there is a conflict and someone pushes on me, and I put the person down, I'm being reactive but hardly passive. Many, if not most, of our actions are driven by reactions to events in our lives. A truely proactive person will need a quality crystal ball--I've never been able to find one that good. And motivation for doing something meaningful (or heroic) isn't a property of only proactive personalities. Even the most stereotypical librarian-type will have motivations that will drive behavior. And I'll strongly disagree that a reactive person can't drive plot, unless reactive is being used as a synonym for passive. But even passive characters can drive plot, it just takes more finesse.

Keep in mind that this is yet another example of making a dichotomy out of something that is hardly black-and-white.

I think there's a difference between reacting to what's happening and not doing anything proactively. Being proactive (to me at least in this context) means a character does things to accomplish something, or at the very least wants something and is working toward it. Even if you get pushed, you reacting with purpose: hey, that guy pushed me, I'm going to whack him one.

To me, a purely reactive character is one who sits around and waits for things to happen to them, then reacts to them. That kind of story can be boring, because the character is never trying to do anything so you wonder what the heck the story is about. If a character has no forward momentum on their on, if they cannot act or do anything to advance the story unless someone or something acts upon them, that's a problem.

If they want something, and someone acts upon them and that forces them to act to overcome those acts, and ultimately get what they were after, it's fine. Or even if trying to survive or get away from what's being acted upon them is fine, since that described most suspense novels.

MDei · Jul 24, 2009

Danthia said:
I think there's a difference between reacting to what's happening and not doing anything proactively. Being proactive (to me at least in this context) means a character does things to accomplish something, or at the very least wants something and is working toward it. Even if you get pushed, you reacting with purpose: hey, that guy pushed me, I'm going to whack him one.

To me, a purely reactive character is one who sits around and waits for things to happen to them, then reacts to them. That kind of story can be boring, because the character is never trying to do anything so you wonder what the heck the story is about. If a character has no forward momentum on their on, if they cannot act or do anything to advance the story unless someone or something acts upon them, that's a problem.

If they want something, and someone acts upon them and that forces them to act to overcome those acts, and ultimately get what they were after, it's fine. Or even if trying to survive or get away from what's being acted upon them is fine, since that described most suspense novels.

I get that. A purely reactive person is boring. That's someone who won't take the initiative to get somethign going. It's like a person sitting around the house all day waiting forsomeone to call them and say lets do something instead of doing it themselves.

I see a pattern in books though. A reaction can be a proaction. I'm saying that in the sense that something happens, the person reacts and then something else happens. It was a reactive thing, but it became proactive because they caused somthing else to happen. But a proaction can be a reaction too. MC acts before something happens in reaction to something they learned or discovered. Then when the issue takes a turn or the villian does something unexpectedly they have to react... This paragraph may have confused someone.

It all twist and wraps together in a certain way. So no one can be purely proactive unless they have the power to see into the future and no one can be purely reactive unless they just don't give a damn about anything or anyone including themselves.

Danthia · Jul 24, 2009

MDei said:
So no one can be purely proactive unless they have the power to see into the future .

I don't think seeing into the future is required to be proactive. Proactive is just taking control and acting with the intent to achieve a goal. If you're trying to solve a mystery, you're being proactive in finding the killer. If you're trying to stop a terrorist from blowing up Yankee Stadium, you're being proactive in hunting them down. If you're trying to survive a blizzard on K2, you're being proactive in protecting yourself from the elements.

Knowing the outcome of those goals doesn't matter.

Reactive and Proactive Characters

Not a rich author yet, but I'm here

Tam, na Koncu Drevoreda

Not a rich author yet, but I'm here

Moderator In Name Only

The grad students did it

Tam, na Koncu Drevoreda

Danthia

Moderator In Name Only

Not a rich author yet, but I'm here

The grad students did it

Lagrangian

Cyborg

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

I'm a sparkly fairy princess!

Five by Five

Danthia

Not a rich author yet, but I'm here

Danthia