Passive protagonists

[loquax]

Only once I'd finished my last WIP did I realise that my protagonist was completely passive. He rarely made his own decisions - simply reacting to the actions of others. He was like a beach ball getting kicked along the story rather than an actual character.

But there are plenty of great novels that read like this. Harry Potter, for one, doesn't actually do much, but the story is still entertaining, even though the most exciting parts of the story are normally when he breaks the rules or falls out with his friends - those scarce occasions when he makes his own choices.

So is there a lesson here? Can passive characters be more successful than active ones? Does it even matter?

[DivaNicoletta]

I think it really depends on the character and the novel's plot. I think it could work.

[veinglory]

It depends on the genre and just what you mean by passive. A spy on the run from assassins may act totally in response to their attacks but still be anything but passive.

[loquax]

I would call "a spy running from assassins" passive. I would call "a spy going after a bunch of assassins because they killed his best buddy" active.

[triceretops]

My protags generally all fit in the same mold--a little weak or indecisive, but with a whole lot of passion. I have them learn and garner great strength through the crap I put them through, so they come out of the wash better for the experience, and end up everyone's hero in the end.

The danger with this is changing the personality and having your MC act out of character. I do this over the entire timeframe of the novel, and hope that the transformation is gradual enough. I always end up with a strong and hep character at the end that says, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

tri

[reph]

Hamlet was famously passive.

[scarletpeaches]

Fanny Price was passive and I hated her for it. I can't stand passive characters. They wait for things to happen to them rather than making things happen, which often leads to deus-ex-machina type stories.

[SusanR]

I think when we write "passive" characters, we have to remember that the most passive of them live that way for a reason. Often, they expend vast amounts of energy avoiding something--involvement, anxiety, humiliation, entrapment-- for some good psychological reason.

Paradoxically, they usually wind up neck-deep in the crap their passivity was meant to circumvent! Which can make for an interesting, if subtle, predicament.

When we write these characters, we can write them more richly by remembering that even the word avoid is a verb.

On the other hand, if you don't mean for your protagonist to have a passive nature, rather, your plot seems to evolve passively around him, maybe the story is really more "about" some other, more active, character.

I'm trying to think of some well-known novels in which the protag is more of a passive reactor, and I'm in mind of two coming-of-age novels: THE MEMBER OF THE WEDDING by Carson Mccullers and CATCHER IN THE RYE by JD Salinger.

LOL...I dunno....the tryptophan from the turkey seems to be metabolizing into serotonin, the sleep neurotransmitter, all of a sudden, and I doubt that I am thinking clearly. If I'm not making any sense in this post, I wouldn't be surprised.

SusanR

[jules]

I like to write about characters that spend a lot of time behaving passively but then find they can't stand it any more and decide they have to do something about what's wrong with their world.

The lead up to that decision can be very interesting, and can be well over half the story sometimes.

[scarletpeaches]

SusanR, I am very glad you reminded me of the turkey slices I bought today - specifically for the reason of helping me sleep!

Perhaps I would be better off hitting myself over the head with a frozen turkey until I was knocked out! ;)

[SpookyWriter]

I agree with the general idea that a passive character can work depending on the plot. I think Sherlock Holmes was a somewhat passive character at times because he waited for something to happen before becoming involved. Dr. Watson is a great example of a passive character and pretty much follows Holmes around. I'm not saying the two were completely passive, but at times they came across that way.

Some stories need a strong, active character to drive the action forward. Can you imagine a passive super hero or police detective tracking down a serial killer?

[maestrowork]

The protagonist could be passive, but only for so long. Eventually he must choose. Also, even if he's reactive to everything that happens to him, he still must have a strong desire and want for something. Without this desire, your protagonist would be dull and weak. And passive doesn't = dull/weak.

[brokenfingers]

The protagonist could be passive, but only for so long. Eventually he must choose. Also, even if he's reactive to everything that happens to him, he still must have a strong desire and want for something. Without this desire, your protagonist would be dull and weak. And passive doesn't = dull/weak.Wassup, Ray?

Are you sure you don't mean that passive = dull, weak?

[maestrowork]

Passive not= dull/weak

Without strong desire and wants = dull/weak

The protagonist must have strong desires or wants, and perhaps struggle with that internal conflict, even if externally he's passive. Someone brought up Hamlet. "Not doing anything" is a choice, too. But the reason for "not doing anything" must be a strong one, and Hamlet's full of these strong feelings and desires and wants. That makes him a fascinating character, even if most of the time he chooses not to do anything.

[brokenfingers]

Hmmm, I think I disagree. Unless the book is all internal monologue, what good are desires and wants if the protag doesn't act upon them? (Unless, of course, we're talking "literary" which is one of the hardest markets to get into anyway, besides being about the least read)

I think a writer would be hard-pressed to find an editor who would buy their work if the protag was passive - inactive, reliant on others to gird them into action.

One of the key piques of editors that I've read is passive protag's who don't act from the beginning. The beginning should be the moment when they've reached the point where they're not gonna take it no more. All else is dross...

[maestrowork]

That's why I said: "The protagonist could be passive, but not for too long." Again, "not doing anything" is also a choice, if the reason is strong. But eventually, the protagonist must choose to act. It's true even in literary fiction where most struggles are internal. Characters are defined not solely by their desires and wants, but also by their actions. Again, what I'm suggesting here is to make your protagonist's "non-action" a strong, valid choice. It could work in literary fiction, and it could work in genres such as romance, thriller, mystery, etc. For example:

Pride and Prejudice (literary, romance): Both Elizabeth and Darcy are rather passive in the beginning, both choosing not to act on their attraction to each other, or rather, act by running away from their feelings. Again, the reasons are very strong. There comes a point in the story they must act.

The Da Vinci Code (techno thriller): Langdon is very passive in the beginning, reacting to almost everything happening to him with confusion and ineptitude. However, there comes a point when he must act to save his own life PLUS satisfy his desire to find the truth.

Misery (horror, thriller): Paul Sheldon... while he's very passive, he has strong desires -- to be rid of Misery....


I think opening a novel when a protagonist must do something is a viable choice, but not always necessary. The idea of hooking the readers in the beginning can be achieved in many ways, mostly importantly by creating a problem for the protagonist. But IMHO, it's not necessary that the protagonist must take action immediately at the beginning. However, give him a real, strong motivation to act (active) or not act (passive -- maybe based on fear or trying to protect his family or whatever), and your readers will be hooked.

[veinglory]

I think we are all using the word different ways. In my experience editors have called my characters passive not because they respond to events but because they don't take any sort of deliberate actions to acheive a goal. I would tend to draw a line between active (even if just to save your own live) and being proactive (going after the attackers).

[TheGaffer]

I agree with veinglory. There are some genres -- like noir fiction, or horror in some cases -- where the protagonist is sucked into a situation because of a decision - an active action - that really isn't too far out of the realm of a regular day-to-day decision, like agreeing to drop off a package for someone or deciding that, "yes, this would be a great house to live." But that could still be a relatively passive character. Then, for a time, things "happen" to them before they turn active to try to ____ (escape from the house/ find the killer/ get the money back/ get out of the country/ solve the mystery/ prove their innocence/ yada yada).

It's the rare novel - unless we're talking real literary stuff - that can maintain a rather passive character all the way through (Holden Caufield is probably the best example). Not many mysteries begin with the protagonist being just a dimwitted slacker who opens his door and gets punched in the face. When they begin that way, usually we find some kind of motivating back story for the puncher (and the punchee).

:idea:

[LightShadow]

improve with progression

[emeraldcite]

Passive isn't necessarily bad. Does the character change? Can the audience connect? Is the character's passivity part of the theme? Just some thoughts to throw out there.

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree with the general idea that a passive character can work depending on the plot. I think Sherlock Holmes was a somewhat passive character at times because he waited for something to happen before becoming involved. Dr. Watson is a great example of a passive character and pretty much follows Holmes around. I'm not saying the two were completely passive, but at times they came across that way.

Some stories need a strong, active character to drive the action forward. Can you imagine a passive super hero or police detective tracking down a serial killer?

Different tastes, I guess. Neither Holmes nor Watson ever came across as the least bit passive to me. In fact, I'd say the two were as far from passive as it's possible to get. Have you actually read the Holmes stories? Homes was constantly making things happen, it was what he did best, and Watson was not the bumbling, sit around, follow Holmes blindly character he is in many of the movies.

[Jamesaritchie]

Only once I'd finished my last WIP did I realise that my protagonist was completely passive. He rarely made his own decisions - simply reacting to the actions of others. He was like a beach ball getting kicked along the story rather than an actual character.

But there are plenty of great novels that read like this. Harry Potter, for one, doesn't actually do much, but the story is still entertaining, even though the most exciting parts of the story are normally when he breaks the rules or falls out with his friends - those scarce occasions when he makes his own choices.

So is there a lesson here? Can passive characters be more successful than active ones? Does it even matter?

I don;t consider Harry Potter passive. Not even a little bit. I wonder if the word needs defined? Making your own choices or not has little to do with being a passive character. A pqassive character is one who doesn't respond. Harry Potter always responds.

Getting kicked around is fine, but then you have to do something, or try to do something, to stop the kicking. Harry Potter does this. He does a LOT.

As for your character, how does he react to the actions of others? It's reaction that usually makes a character active. Things happen to people, and how they react is what makes them a good or a bad protagonist.

But, no, I don't think passive protagonists stand much of a chance in fiction.
One of the biggest complaints I see from editors concerns passive protagionists. And if the protagonist really is passive, I can't imagine anyone wanting to read about them.

[loquax]

I watched the Goblet of Fire a week ago, and I concentrated...... no, Harry didn't do much. From what I can remember of the story, he gets chased through a forest by death eaters, entered into the triwizard against his will and forced to compete in it, forced into a dance, and ends up transported to a duel with Voldemort.

The only times I can remember him doing anything active are informing Cedric of the Dragons, and going after Cho (even though he used the excuse of the dance, I think he wanted to get it on with her anyway).

Otherwise he pretty much did what everybody told him to do. Is it exciting when he goes under his invisibility cloak? Yes. Is it exciting when he slips into the grounds after dark? Yes. That's because in these moments he isn't doing what people are telling him to do. That's what I call active Harry.

[Mike Coombes]

Thomas covenant was passive - he was in a coma throughout the whole second volume, as I remember. I'm not sure if he ever got active, I lost the will to live after the second book.

[triceretops]

I guess there is something to be said in defense of the relunctant hero syndrome. It seems to be a case wherein our hero is forced to react rather than act in tight spots and snares. And in doing so, you see the character grow with humility, courage, determination and strength--a gradual transformation from passive to active. Someone said "progression" which I think is more spot on.

I see Batman as a figure who initiates and starts things--he dosen't hesitate to do what he thinks he has to do. Alas, his motivation is revenge, so he's pretty fixed in his persona.

Spidy is very gun-shy, almost timid and vunerable, but he is aware that he has great powers and that to use them for the sake of justice in the protection of the weak is something that he comes to accept, abeit, almost grudgingly at times.

Tri

[Jamesaritchie]

I watched the Goblet of Fire a week ago, and I concentrated...... no, Harry didn't do much. From what I can remember of the story, he gets chased through a forest by death eaters, entered into the triwizard against his will and forced to compete in it, forced into a dance, and ends up transported to a duel with Voldemort.

The only times I can remember him doing anything active are informing Cedric of the Dragons, and going after Cho (even though he used the excuse of the dance, I think he wanted to get it on with her anyway).

Otherwise he pretty much did what everybody told him to do. Is it exciting when he goes under his invisibility cloak? Yes. Is it exciting when he slips into the grounds after dark? Yes. That's because in these moments he isn't doing what people are telling him to do. That's what I call active Harry.



All that is doing something. I think you're assuming that protagonists are either in full charge of everything, or they're passive. Heroes in charge are as boring as heroes who stand around and do nothing.

Yes, Harry gets chased. This does NOT in any way make him passive. It makes him smart. Running from something that can kill you is not passive. Even Superman runs from kryptonite. If getting chased makes someone pasive, then for the first half of the Civil war, all the yankees were passive, and for the last half, all the Rebels were passive. Harry is running, and that's active. Harry is trying not to get caught, and that's active. Being FORCED to do something is not passive.

And, yes, Harry is a child, so adults tell him what to do. But Harry does not like being told what to do, and at every opportunity, in every one of the stories, he disobeys the adults and does something he knows he isn't supposed to do. Amd he doesn't do pretty much what he's told to do, except where any normal, rational kid would also obey because he must.

And in the end, it's Harry who wins the day through his own actions.

It sounds like you think a protagonist is either in charge, is either the one telling everyone else what to do, or he's passive. A hero in charge of everything is just as boring as a hero who's passive. Put Superman in a room of ordinary bank robbers, and he's fully in charge, and the scene is so boring it would put an insomniac to sleep. It's only when Superman comes up against somethng stronger than he is, something he can't defeat while yawning, that he becomes interesting. It's when he has to run, has to use his wits, has to think that he's real.

Harry Potter is never, ever passive. Even when he's doing what he's told, he's still trying to figure out ways to not do what he's told. He doesn't like being told what to do. It makes him angry.

But what he can't do, what no good protagonist can ever do, is be fully in charge. Passive is when you're running, but don't have to run. Passive is when you're told what to do, and never try to get around it. Never try to disobey.

Harry Potter is so popular because, in many ways, he reflects all of us as childre, and some of us as adults. There may be people telling him what to do all the time, but he doesn't like it, he fights against it, and when opportunity presents, he goes his own way and does the brave thing. But passive he ain't. Not in any way, shape, or form.

[Jamesaritchie]

I guess there is something to be said in defense of the relunctant hero syndrome. It seems to be a case wherein our hero is forced to react rather than act in tight spots and snares. And in doing so, you see the character grow with humility, courage, determination and strength--a gradual transformation from passive to active. Someone said "progression" which I think is more spot on.

I see Batman as a figure who initiates and starts things--he dosen't hesitate to do what he thinks he has to do. Alas, his motivation is revenge, so he's pretty fixed in his persona.

Spidy is very gun-shy, almost timid and vunerable, but he is aware that he has great powers and that to use them for the sake of justice in the protection of the weak is something that he comes to accept, abeit, almost grudgingly at times.

Tri

Yes, but Spidey is in no way passive. Reluctant and passive are very different things. Reluctant heroes are often the best kind. Passive heroes don't exist.

[Jamesaritchie]

I would call "a spy running from assassins" passive. I would call "a spy going after a bunch of assassins because they killed his best buddy" active.

I'd call a spy running from assassins a smart person.

[loquax]

It sounds like you think a protagonist is either in charge, is either the one telling everyone else what to do, or he's passive.No, they can be both. I mentioned active Harry.

I disagree with your point that people who don't want to be passive are automatically not. I don't use it as a subjective term. If someone follows orders even if they don't want to, they're still following orders. They're still living through the supporting character.

If you think that people's inner thoughts affect their passiveness, then no-one is passive. If someone wants to follow orders, they're active. If someone doesn't want to follow orders, they're active. If someone doesn't care about what they're doing, they're actively nonchalant. Everyone's active!

Even though my original post put a bad name to passiveness, I gave an example of where it works. You seem to think that passive = bad. I love Harry Potter (who doesn't?). I don't regard his passiveness as anything bad, precisely because of all the good things you said about him. His inner turmoil is what makes him such a great character. But I still think he's passive.

[emeraldcite]

I think striking a balance between activity and passivity is important. A wholly active character may come off as too aggressive, while a wholly passive character can be boring and lackadaisical .

[maestrowork]

I think that's a good distinction between a "reluctant" and a "passive" hero (if passive heroes exist). Spiderman and Superman are never passive. They might have their moments of self-doubts and weakness (thus making their characters so much more real than a cardboard hero), but they always choose -- and take actions.

And don't forget the other sides of heroes/protagonists -- they choose to do or not do something because of a higher purpose, against their OWN desires. So their wants and desires act as an antagonistic force. Forex, Spidy RE: MJ, Superman RE: Lois Lane, wanting to throw it all away for her (thus making Superman II such a more superior film).

[veinglory]

The only example I would agree with is Thomas Covenant--I found those books extremely irritating!

[britwrit]

Really? I haven't read those books for a long time but I thought his passivity worked well for the story. After all, this was a guy who had the colossal bad luck of becoming a leper in the modern age. Who wouldn't be shocked into numbness by that? (But then again, I was fourteen when I read the Unbeliever series, so it wasn't like I was a judge of great literature).

I think passive characters are more of a symptom of bad novels, rather than the root cause of them. If a writer can't focus on a coherent plot, or a consistent tone, he or she are going to write characters who drift along here and there. On the other hand, if the protagonist's passivity is part of the writer's vision, I don't think it's any problem at all.

[loquax]

Themes about helplessness, fate, destiny etc. often lead to passive characters. Then they go active halfway through when they suddenly proclaim "No! I write my own future! A pox on thee, foul scribe of destiny, for I am free!"

...

[Birol]

When we're talking about passive vs. active protagonists, are we really talking about reactive vs. proactive protagonists? Reactive characters respond to things that happen to them; proactive characters make things happen.

[triceretops]

Birol, thank you for defining that difference with a clean ax stroke.

Tri

[loquax]

Now I'm confused.

[SpookyWriter]

Something I wrote many years ago. I think the passage is
useful today and sort of describes passive vs active characters.


For a character to be true to themselves, would simply
mean, they would not go against their nature to further
the story. In other words, we don't expect a doctor to
become someone who is also a master carpenter. Nor do
we expect a plumber to be able to perform brain surgery.
The characters in a story are true to themselves when
they fit the expectations of the reader and we are not
surprised by their behavior or abilities.

This may vary in situations where the particular scene
calls for our character to do something extraordinary or
out of character in order to overcome a crisis, or to
avoid personal harm. At times, the human spirit takes
us to another realm of endurance and our instinct for
survival comes in to play. In these situations, our
character may be expected to do things that we would
normal think impossible.

As for staying true to the story, a character is not
one-dimensional and is subject to the rules of continuity
on the belief that the story is a merely a guide into
places most people only dream about. As writers, we must
try to make our characters realistic so that their actions
are believable and true to the story.

[Birol]

What are you confused about, loquax?

[loquax]

I can see where you're coming from, I really can. But something tells me that they're not the same. I think proactive and reactive both fall under the category of "active". Afterall, they both have the word active in them. I think they're another layer to this already confusing matter. And therefore, I'm confused.

[scarletpeaches]

I have always said a passive character has things done to them. An active person does things himself.

Just look at active/passive tenses. The action was done to the character. The character carried out the action.

[loquax]

I have always said a passive character has things done to them. An active person does things himself.

Just look at active/passive tenses. The action was done to the character. The character carried out the action.I'm more comfortable with thishttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[fallenangelwriter]

to me, a passive character is one who either doesn't do much of anything, or waits around and lets events come to him. the first is inexcusable; if the MC doesn't do anything, there's no story. being forced into doing things is okay, but the protagonist hopefully shows some planning and somehow takes control of the situation. even when they don't know what's going or how they're going to solve their problems, most of my favorite characters have distinctive styles and a determination to do things their way.


take Harry Potter. he is largly driven by outside events, yes, but he's extremely active and proactive. look at the very first book: no one makes him investigate the Stone. he finds out about it , takes an interest, and away he goes. in every book, from the moment he reaches hogwarts, he's filled with plans and suspicions, and he always knows what he wants top do and more-or-less how to go about it.

[reph]

Celie in The Color Purple mostly reacts. Through most of the book, she has very little freedom. Other people control her. Yet she seems a strong character.

Analyze?

[scarletpeaches]

Action doesn't always have to be external.

[Birol]

No, action doesn't have to be external but action, any action, is doing something, if it is properly written, even if it's only in one's head. As fallenangelwriter indicated, a passive character doesn't do much and there's not much story there.


Reph, I agree that Celie is largely a reactive character, but in my lexicon, she is not passive. She responds to the situations in which she finds herself. She's a strong character because she survives the hardships inflicted upon her.

[SusanR]

When I think about what a passive character might be like, here's what I come up with: a character who has a great deal of psychological inertia, someone whose inertia requires an outside, unbalanced force to move it from its position.

I also think of a character who, in terms of movement, does little. Is static.

Finally, I think of a character who reacts more than initiates.

None of these automatically make for a bad (boring) novel. Some fascinating stories can be woven around a passive character, who when acted upon by a sufficiently compelling force, has to deal. The reluctant hero, or even semi-hero.

The lifelong passive and dependent child-woman unexpectedly widowed and left destitute, forced by circumstance to go out into the world and make a living.

A catatonic patient in a mental institution suddenly finds himself one of a few survivors of a catastrophe that wipes out most of humankind.

A middle-aged man constantly reacting to the eddies and currents of political forces at his mega-corporation, leaves with his revolutionary idea, starts a business, and becomes the target of his old corporation.

What would make a boring novel, IMO, is to keep the character passive throughout the novel. I don't think it's interesting to read about a character who successfully resists change. (Though in the hands of a master, even this could be compelling, but Lord knows, I'm not the one to write it. I have a hard enough time writing an action-packed story decently. Said master would have to make his/her reader feel deeply all the lost possibilitities for growth...everything that being passive cost that character. Not easy.

SusanR

[LightShadow]

Even the Hero's Journey begins with reluctance. Passive is not passive as long as the character is growing and learning and improving. I think here passive is being confused with non-confrontational.

[Birol]

Susan, to me, what you are describing is a reactive character, not a passive one.

[SusanR]

Susan, to me, what you are describing is a reactive character, not a passive one.

Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of passive:

Main Entry: 1pas·sive http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?passiv03.wav=passive'))
Pronunciation: 'pa-siv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin passivus, from passus, past participle
1 a (1) : acted upon by an external agency (2) : receptive to outside impressions or influences b (1) : asserting that the grammatical subject of a verb is subjected to or affected by the action represented by that verb (2) : containing or yielding a passive verb form c (1) : lacking in energy or will : LETHARGIC (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lethargic) (2) : tending not to take an active or dominant part d : induced by an outside agency <passive exercise of a paralyzed leg>
2 a : not active or operating : INERT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/inert) b : of, relating to, or making direct use of the sun's heat usually without the intervention of mechanical devices <passive technique> <a passive solar house> c : LATENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/latent) d (1) : of, relating to, or characterized by a state of chemical inactivity; especially : resistant to corrosion (2) : not involving expenditure of chemical energy <passive transport across a cell membrane> e of an electronic element : exhibiting no gain or control f : operating solely by means of the power of an input signal <a passive communication satellite that reflects television signals> g : relating to the detection of an object through its emission of energy
3 a : receiving or enduring without resistance : SUBMISSIVE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/submissive) b : existing or occurring without being active, open, or direct <passive support>
4 : of, relating to, or being business activity in which the investor does not have immediate control over income
synonym see INACTIVE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/inactive)

So reactive is a pretty synonym, I think. How would you distinguish a "passive" from a "reactive" character? I think I mentioned it's possible to write a novel with a character who successfully resisted change-that is, was more inert than reactive.

SusanR

[brokenfingers]

When I think about what a passive character might be like, here's what I come up with: a character who has a great deal of psychological inertia, someone whose inertia requires an outside, unbalanced force to move it from its position.

I also think of a character who, in terms of movement, does little. Is static.

Finally, I think of a character who reacts more than initiates.

None of these automatically make for a bad (boring) novel. Some fascinating stories can be woven around a passive character, who when acted upon by a sufficiently compelling force, has to deal. The reluctant hero, or even semi-hero.

The lifelong passive and dependent child-woman unexpectedly widowed and left destitute, forced by circumstance to go out into the world and make a living.

A catatonic patient in a mental institution suddenly finds himself one of a few survivors of a catastrophe that wipes out most of humankind.

A middle-aged man constantly reacting to the eddies and currents of political forces at his mega-corporation, leaves with his revolutionary idea, starts a business, and becomes the target of his old corporation.

What would make a boring novel, IMO, is to keep the character passive throughout the novel. I don't think it's interesting to read about a character who successfully resists change. (Though in the hands of a master, even this could be compelling, but Lord knows, I'm not the one to write it. I have a hard enough time writing an action-packed story decently. Said master would have to make his/her reader feel deeply all the lost possibilitities for growth...everything that being passive cost that character. Not easy.

SusanRHmmm, I think we must all be looking at the term passive character differently.

The lifelong passive and dependent child-woman unexpectedly widowed and left destitute, forced by circumstance to go out into the world and make a living.

The key here, for me at least, is the part in red. The person takes action. If she just stayed home, passive and afraid, and whined about how cruel the world was - the story just wouldn't work.

A catatonic patient in a mental institution suddenly finds himself one of a few survivors of a catastrophe that wipes out most of humankind.


If the patient stays in the hospital, afraid to venture out and see what's going on - he's passive and a failure as a protagonist and hero. Even if he just reacts to all kinds of attacks by others - he reacts at least and defends himself. If all he does is hide and skulk and avoid these conflicts - it makes for a very unsatisfying story.

If, however, he finally devises a plan to beat these baddies who keep attacking him (and maybe others) or devises a way to escape the bad zone, or finds help or DOES something to end these constant assults (confronts the conflict and eventually overcomes it) - then readers are more likely to enjoy the story.

A middle-aged man constantly reacting to the eddies and currents of political forces at his mega-corporation, leaves with his revolutionary idea, starts a business, and becomes the target of his old corporation.


Once again, action has been taken. He's no longer passive. If he stayed behind and continued working there, even though he hated it, and did nothing to change his circumstances - then he'd be passive and the story would fail, in my opinion. Even if he stayed and fought from the inside - he would still be FIGHTING and so would not be passive.

In many novels, the character chooses at first to deny the Call to Action. But eventually they must answer it or the story fails.

Stories are about conflict. If the main character doesn't confront the conflict facing them - they have no right being the main character (of course these rules do not apply to Literary stories - all bets are off there.)

Who wants to read a story where the main character avoids the conflicts facing them throughout the book - even unto the end. In the hands of a skilled writer, maybe the character can avoid the conflict until the climax - but I can't help but feel it would be a hard sell in today's publishing climate.

[maestrowork]

I think in HP, we're offered three different degrees of passive/active with the three main characters -- I think Rowling did this deliberately:

- Hermione is the most active one, I think. She's always doing something, starting something, seeking out someone, going to the library to check things out, telling Harry he should be doing something, etc. etc. She pretty much saved the day in the 3rd book/movie.

- Ron is the most passive one. He almost never initiates anything and he reacts a lot to what's happening around him. He needs a lot of pushing and suggestions.

- Harry is in the middle. He's kind of reactive to a lot of things, but he also takes action. He likes to explore and find things out, and sometimes look for troubles. His increasing power makes him more and more confidence to take risks.

[SusanR]

Yeah, what the two of you both said.

I've spent the last few minutes thinking about the definitions I posted, and now I *can* see the difference between passive and reactive.

You beat a character with a stick, and his body absorbs the blows. He doesn't visibly react. He's like rag doll. That's passive.

A character who takes it until he can takes no more, then beats holy hell out of his attacker, is reactive.

Discourse is wonderful. I learn things, even at this point well into middle age. Thank you both for responding!

SusanR

[Birol]

Yes, thank you. I was trying to figure out how to respond to Susan's question to me and you both did it better than I could have done.

[Sage]

I think that for much of this conversation the term passive is being used to the extreme. Passive people do things. I am a passive person socially (in person). Put me in a group & I'll go along w/ what they say. Someone says, "Let's go do something," & I'll go along, even if it wasn't something I was really wanting to do. I don't like arguing w/ others & will avoid conflict if at all possible.

Does this mean I don't act? No. For example, I took the initiative to write. Another example: I'll follow what my bosses tell me to do at work, but I'll also do whatever I see needs done.

A passive hero might be one who is pushed into the situation he's in by a wizard or king or some other force, telling him he's the "Chosen One" & he must take this quest. He could assert himself & say no, but he goes along because it's expected of him. Tho he might end up saving the world , but he is still acting passively. He is a passive character. He might stay one (by running from dragons or merely defending himself against the bad guy when the baddie comes to get him), or he may grow into a more assertive role (making an attempt to learn what he needs to do or actively fighting). The adventure will of course be different based on which kind of hero he is, but I don't think it will mean it's boring.

I remember doing DARE & learning the word passive. It was associated w/ agressive & assertive (we were learning to be assertive when offered drugs, not passive, but not agressive). If your character is not an agressor & doesn't assert themselves, they're probably passive. But IMO, that doesn't mean that they cannot act.

But I got to agree that passive tends to be more along the lines of reactive or submissive. The other option seems to be inactive. But put it in a thesaurus & you get both meanings, so I guess everyone's right (lookit how I avoided an argument there ;) ). An inactive character would be pretty boring, but a submissive or reactive one, not necessarily.

[loquax]

Let's think of the benefits of passiveness. My example was of Harry Potter. As Ray put it, he can be both active and passive. I think that this leads to greater excitement when he does something shocking. For example, throughout the books he lets Snape walk all over him. But when it comes to Umbridge, he explodes with vicious remarks. That's my favourite chapter in the whole series, simply because it's so engaging.

If Harry was rude, disobedient, and generally active all the time, scenes like that would have no power.

[Birol]

I respectively request that no one place any spoilers for the most recent HP book in this thread or that you mark them as such should you do so. I know it has been out for awhile now, but I still haven't read it. I promised some people that I would not read it until after I finished the novel I'm currently working on, which should be in the next few weeks. It's my reward for reaching The End.

[katiemac]

My definition is probably going to add to confusion, but I tend to think of passive characters as those who do what they do because it's easy, whereas the active characters face the challenge head-on, reluctantly or not. I also believe there's a difference between being passive and being subtlely active.

[SusanR]

Yes, thank you. I was trying to figure out how to respond to Susan's question to me and you both did it better than I could have done.

LOL! *You* were one of the two to whom I was referring when I said, "thanks, I can see that now." Thou art too modest...:)

SusanR

[mesh138]

In some books, the protagonist drives the story, but there are many good books where he/she does not. For example, I consider the Nick Calloway of the Great Gatsby somewhat passive. It's the story that's active, he's just kind of swept along by it. Albert Camus's main character in the Stranger just does whatever, not really deciding much until he pumps the arab full of lead. So, I'd say as long as your craft is up to par- then you're good to go.

[Anatole Ghio]

While writing a passive character in no way qualifies the story as being somehow weak, it is one of the markers for an inexperienced writer. As someone else mentioned, it tends to follow confused ideas on the part of the writer in regards to having a strong sense about the thrust of the story and what motivates the main character. It becomes harder to create sympathy for the character in the eyes of the reader, and also tends to make it more difficult to create tension or suspense.

Personally, as soon as I see it in my own writing, my first inclination is to rework the material. No matter how passive or reactive the character is in any situation, you can always find the smallest ways in which they are actively expressing their wants and personalities.

If anything, by leaving a character passive, you are missing the golden opportunity to express more of who they are, and to do it in a way that will generally be more engaging for the reader.

[maestrowork]

For example, I consider the Nick Calloway of the Great Gatsby somewhat passive.

But Nick Calloway is not the protagonist -- he's just the narrator. Jay Gatsby is the protagonist and very much active. Can you imagine the Great Gatsby written with Nick Calloway as the protagonist?

[Demonica]

I think when we write "passive" characters, we have to remember that the most passive of them live that way for a reason. Often, they expend vast amounts of energy avoiding something--involvement, anxiety, humiliation, entrapment-- for some good psychological reason.

Paradoxically, they usually wind up neck-deep in the crap their passivity was meant to circumvent! Which can make for an interesting, if subtle, predicament.

When we write these characters, we can write them more richly by remembering that even the word avoid is a verb.



Tryptophan or no, that's quite well said.

Of the top of my head, Travels with my Aunt - Graham Greene - or for that matter, The Hobbit, J.R. Tolkien both feature a classic British character, the man who just wants a quiet life, sucked into someone else's saga and emerging larger and wiser.

It's a perfectly valid format - if you understand what you are doing.

[scarletpeaches]

The conclusion I come to is that someone who has things happen to them, rather than making things happen himself, is a passive character. (Here I am reminded of those annoying people we all meet in real life - the passive aggressive type who would never slap your face, but you would probably want to do that to him).

However, there are probably some novels out there with well-written 'passive' characters (less so with the passive character being the MC)...It's just that to me, they're a turn-off. It seems a lazy way of writing, damn close to 'telling not showing' in character form.

[fallenangelwriter]

A passive hero might be one who is pushed into the situation he's in by a wizard or king or some other force, telling him he's the "Chosen One" & he must take this quest. He could assert himself & say no, but he goes along because it's expected of him. Tho he might end up saving the world , but he is still acting passively. He is a passive character. He might stay one (by running from dragons or merely defending himself against the bad guy when the baddie comes to get him), or he may grow into a more assertive role (making an attempt to learn what he needs to do or actively fighting). The adventure will of course be different based on which kind of hero he is, but I don't think it will mean it's boring.


really? you can passively save the world? i'm not convinced. even going with the "submissive, tolerant" definition, i can't belive that anyone saves the world "just cause it's what they're supposed to do". if the chosen hero never works up any nethusiasm for the task, he won't succeed. in every fantasy i've read. success only comes after the hero has completely committed himself to his cours,e and started doing things on his own initiative. he saves the world because he wants to, not because he has to.

[maestrowork]

Passive characters tend to be more internal and less external, and they could be very annoying to the readers if they keep on NOT doing anything. Even event stories when bad things happen to good people (disaster thrillers, etc.) the good people do something. When I read a book or a see a movie in which the character keeps saying "I don't know what to do" then just sits there and watches things happen, I'd scream bloody murder.

Some people like quiet, passive, internal characters. I don't. Personally, I'm drawn to active heroes.

And there are different degrees of passiveness, too. Even if all the characters are doing something, you can still see the difference. E.g. I talked about Hermione vs. Harry vs. Ron. Also, Frodo is much more passive (even though he's saving the world!) than say, Gandalf.

[loquax]

I don't know if anyone saw the last episode of Smallville, but Clark was very passive in it. And it got him into a heap o' trubble. Interestingly, his passiveness relied on trust.

Thinking about it, all passive characters must trust those who are pushing them on. The moment they lose that trust and disobey, they become active.

Either that or they don't trust the person who is pushing them on, but they go along anyway. I suppose that would make them über passive...

[maestrowork]

That brought up a good point. When the protagonist is "passive," it's probably good to counter-balance with an active character. For example, when Clark Kent is passive, usually it's Lois Lane that is uber active... When Harry is passive, it's Hermione who is egging him on all the time...