Passivity vs proactiveness of main character

A book I'm reading now says that it's extremely important that your main character isn't passive, reacting to events around him. Instead, he (or she), should be in the active role, making things happen. Otherwise, the script will be dull and secondary characters might overshadow him.

In my script, the main character is fairly passive until the midpoint, where he becomes much more active, influencing events instead of events influencing him.

The reason he's so passive in the first part is because he's basically a coward and he has to overcome obstacles. He eventually does and this growth makes him much more confident and courageous.

So, I think that in this example, it is OK to have a passive character in the beginning if it serves the purpose.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

fj/g

your thinking is common among beginners (not that you're a beginner). you must not have a passive protag

if your char is a coward, then make him a coward that wants to show (or trick people into believing) he is not a coward. or wishes he was not (and therefore does something to try to change his condition). or something like this. then, he will act (making him active, not passive) and the results of his taking some action will bring the story to life - it will drive act II.

this is necessary - it's a must. don't rationalize your way out of it. when i say this is common among beginners i mean it. a beginner will convince himself that any number of structural errors (that are pointed out in all books) are actually okay in their script - that they are, actually, not an error in the case of their script. that it's okay in this example. that this one exeption will be seen as a brilliant supplanting of the rules - upon analysis, that is. that is, if the reader is smart enough to appreciate the depth of your complex dramatic thinking. etc

reconsider


zilla

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

I'm a beginner receptive to advice

thx

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

FJ&G

A character who is a coward - does not have to be passive. A coward can take actions to AVOID perceived dangers, he can cross the street so he doesn't have to pass by the thugs or he can run away from them. There are any number of ways to have the character's lack of courage cause him to act.

Passive character = boring character - there is no way around it.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Simon Says,

Instead of the word "passive" I should have said, "controlled by events instead of influencing events."

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Regardless of the personality traits your character has, he must take actions that make things happen. And you cannot wait until the 2nd half to make that happen. You have to find a way to use his weaknesses and flaws to effect his life. A coward can influence events by the actions he takes to avoid perceived dangers.

A soldier who is afraid to fight and abandons his post - could be responsible for the death of his commrades.

In the movie VERTIGO Jimmy Stewart's fear of heights leads to the death of his partner - this happens at the very beginning of the film.

Use your character's weakness to your advantage.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Actually SimonSays, you are very priescent. That's exactly what happens. Sort of a Red Badge of Courage takeoff.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

I agree with Simon. A passive character is one the writer prevents from doing things and just allows things to happen to. Don't think about actions as just physical movements. A decision is an action. If your character decides NOT to do something heroic, that's an active character.

Put your character in situations where he has to make choices. He doesn't have to have godlike control over the events, but he needs to have some control over what he does during them -- even if that choice is to run away.

Vogler's "The Writer's Journey" is a good primer on the subject. For all I know, that's what you're reading now.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

SimonSays is right.

If you have a character whose one desire is to stay at home and be left alone -- The ultimate passive character -- Then you need opponents who are ready, willing, and able to do whatever it takes to move him: He must be equally willing to go to any lengths to be left alone.

If you have a coward then he must be placed in a situation where he has to fight, and to make a story he must be willing to do anything to get out of a fight. To make it really convincing he is a coward he should be willing to go to such lengths to avoid a fight that most people would say, "It would be easier just to go in and fight."

Your character might want to be passive, but they must be proactive about their desire.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

every action (or inaction) causes an equal but opposite reaction.

True in physics and true in a character.

You can have a passive character, but then the weight of responsibility falls upon his/her antagonists to move the story forward. The villain (whether person, event, life, etc) causes your hero to make a change. Sometimes for the better and other times for the worse.

At one point, you hero needs to have an arc (or change in direction). Usually the mid point or even more so in the end of first act. Your hero realizes that he/she needs to become active in order to achieve goals. he/she may not get it perfect the first time out, but the journey would make it interesting.

So to say you can't have a passive character, needs this amendment. You can, but it needs to still move the story forward and ultimately, the character needs to change, in order to be interesting to him/herself and to the audience.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Your main character needs to be the MOST interesting character in your script. It is hard to make a passive character interesting - especially for inexperienced writers.

When heros are too passive the villian often ends up being the most interesting character in the script.

Characters are the most interesting when they are their own worst enemies - when their weaknesses are major obstacles keeping them from getting what they want. When they take actions and make decisions that put them in a bind. The decision can be to take no action, but the character needs to make the decision not to act - and the lack of action needs to create additional obstacles and/or generate conflict.

Your character should be "going for his goal" from page one. He may need to change tactics later on - but your character needs to have a desire that his driving him throughout the script.

Needs and desires are two different things. A charater willl not be aware of his need early on - but he has to be aware of his goal.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Simon,
I think we're saying the same thing but in different ways.

I'm not advocating a passive hero, but it can and has been be done.

Again, it depends on each script. A passive superhero won't work, but a passive protagonist in a comedy might, if handled properly. In fact, his/her passsiveness could make for good laughs.

As for being the most interesting person in a script, I think interesting isn't the right word. As long as the audience can relate to and appreciate the character, his/her "interestingness" is not an issue.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Joe -

I'm speaking as someone sitting on the other side of the table now - not as a writer but as someone who has worked in development - someone who has read probably close to a thousand specs - someone who has worked with new writers.

I agree it is possible to make a passive character work. But it has been my experience that only those who have alot of experience with character development have the tools to pull it off. It is very difficult to make a character that has a passive personality - textured, proactive, fully developed and interesting.

I also stick to my statement that your main character should be the most interesting. By interesting I mean the most developed, the most dimensional, and flawed - all those things equal interesting and compelling.

One of the biggest weaknesses I have found in scripts by new writers - is that their main characters do not have flaws. They want them to be likeable - but a character can be flawed and still likekable. And a character must have flaws to be compelling.

Not only is a story with an interesting main character more interesting for the viewer, but it is also much easier to cast. Actors are looking for challenges - they want to dig inside a character and embrace their flaws. As a producer, you would always prefer to cast a NAME in the main role than in a supporting role - the more interesting the character, the better your chances of doing so.

I always see on these boards lists of what first time writers should and should not do. I don't always agree with the do's and don'ts but in this case I'll add my own.

A new writer should try to stay away from passive main characters.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Simon,
I agree with you completely. I too have seen newbies make all the mistakes imaginable-- especially with main characters.

But, even though most make passive characters who don't work, I won't discourage those who want to try and make one that will. I point out the obstacles they need to hurdle over.

That's where we differ.

To say to a new writer "Don't do it because it won't work" is like saying "Don't challenge yourself." I for one believe that a writer needs to fall flat on his face once and a while. It's part of the learning process. Besides, he might be able to pull it off first time out.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Joe it's not that I'm saying "don't challenge yourself". I'm saying you gotta learn to walk before you can run. If someone has written plays or novels or short stories and has experience developing character - that's one thing. But if you are a newbie - I suggest saving the passive character for a later script - once you learn the ropes. Even most experienced writers can't pull it off. It is extremely tough to do. There are so many challenges in writing a script to begin with - why do something that in almost all cases will kill your chances at getting an agent, a sale or a job?

I have seen a number of scripts get optioned or sold despite certain flaws - but I have never seen a script OR a writer get recommended when the main character was passive and did not take action that moved the story forward. In almost every case it is interpreted as someone who does not understand the basics of character. Agents and producers are looking for writers who understand the basics of character. Your spec script should show that you do.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

I concede to you logic.

But, I think if the newbie writes a script that has a passive character and it works, then I say "great job."

If it doesn't, he shouldn't be showing it around to anyone until it does.

He should try it in either case, he may just get it right or it will be good practice for when he does.

After all, it usualy takes 10 scripts before you get any good at it.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

In most cases with newbies, having a passive character isn't a conscious decision. More likely, they just haven't bothered to develop the character enough that he has a goal. And, since things have to happen if the script is going to have any pages, incidents happen AROUND the protag and TO the protag, but he doesn't do anything to affect the course of the story.

My theory is that most newbie writers pen passive characters because they view the story through that character's eyes. The protag then takes on the same role as the reader of a novel or viewer of a film. Simon's correct, it is that reluctance to make the character "real" (with flaws) that leads to this.

All of the important points in the story should usually turn based on what the protagonist chooses to do or to not do. And I wouldn't recommend a newbie writer try to "break the rules" just for the sake of a challenge. Believe me, it's plenty challenge enough just to write a good script.

You have to do what's best for your story. Usually, a passive main character is not going to be best.

Re: Passivity vs activeness of main character

Good points by one and all.

Most passive characters written by newbies (and many more experienced writers) are purely by accident and not by design. It is that lacking of understanding on what works and what doesn't.

My comments is based solely on the poster's first question. I tried to be supportive of his decision but warned of the pitfalls he will encounter.

In it, he says... "In my script, the main character is fairly passive until the midpoint, where he becomes much more active, influencing events instead of events influencing him... The reason he's so passive in the first part is because he's basically a coward and he has to overcome obstacles. He eventually does and this growth makes him much more confident and courageous."

He is making a conscious decision to have his character this way. If it works great, but I won't tell him not to bother trying.

My only hope is that if it doesn't work, he won't be foolish enough to send it out as a spec. As with any script, don't send it out until it's ready.

Simonsays:

Your main character needs to be the MOST interesting character in your script. It is hard to make a passive character interesting - especially for inexperienced writers.

Click to expand...

FJ and G:

In my script, the main character is fairly passive until the midpoint, where he becomes much more active, influencing events instead of events influencing him.

Click to expand...

This is a frequent combo in the "boxer who has sworn off violence"; "Ex soldier who won't carry a gun"; "Zen master who won't pull a bow in anger"; etc. Problem is it has grown trite over the years.

In Die Hard 3 Bruce Willis character had to be hijacked by the police and dropped into the middle of the action.

I think the passive character who just wants to be left alone is a integral to the human psyche as the victim of a bully is: At some time everyone has been there. Therefore a lot of writers try to capture it.

e: Passivity vs proactiveness of main character

Writing Again -

A character who just wants to be left alone, needs to take actions to ensure he will be left alone. And it is always best when those actions lead to conflict or complications for himself or others.

Re: e: Passivity vs proactiveness of main character

Yep, SimonSays, you got it.

A man who wants to be left alone in the woods: That has just been declared a sanctuary where no human is allowed, is now being hunted down like an animal.

An old lady who wants to spend her last days in the house she was born in is now in the path of the next freeway.

A kid who doesn't see why they should be required to talk to idiots is sent to a mental institution to solve their "communication difficulties."

A young lady who has decided against marriage and family is seen by the local devil cult as the perfect virgin for their master.

I think we agree, we want our passive characters neat with a twist of lime.

Just asking, is Sean T'ornton in THE QUIET MAN passive until the moment he clashes with Squire Danaher, or is he seen as proactive because he pursues the equally dangerous Mary Kate? Discussing broad generalities is fine, but I'd like to see some specifics offered for analysis. Here's one whose very title suggests a passive main character.

-Derek
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.

DPat

I've never seen The Quiet Man (I know, shameful isn't it?) but if as you say Sean is pursuing Mary Kate, then I would guess that he is a proactive character - he's going after his goal.

I think Simon has hit the nail on the head.

It all boils down to goals. If a character is pursuing his/her goal, then he/she is active.

A lot of people confuse passiveness with the amount and intensity of (or lack of) action they perform.

A character's pro-activeness is not dependent on how active he is. Many new writers (and people in general) think that if a character isn't fighting and shooting his way out of a situation, then that character is passive.

Case in point.

Jesus Christ superficially can be considered passive, because he abhorred violence and promoted "love thy neighbor," and when faced with the opportunity to escape or be pardoned, he did nothing, BUT he stood by his convictions, spoke to others to believe in God as he did and took whatever punishment man had set out for him. He left it up to God whether he should live or not. He forgave his punisher's and accepted his fate.

Jesus was active in his GOAL of creating a better world and was ACTIVE in the events that led to his death by making conscious choices.

The same could be said for Gandhi. Starving himself for a point is very active.

As for the "Quiet Man."

He left the U.S. because he was labeled a murderer (active), he wanted to be alone, but hated that people felt he was an outsider. He tried to make friends (active), he tried not to start fights because he didn't want to kill again (active), and he courted a woman he loved, even though she and her family was going to cause trouble (active). In the end, he was accepted by the villagers and found a place in the world (active).

So, to cap, all characters should have a goal (even if they do not know what it is or in the end don't achieve it) and as long as that character is making choices and performing actions that support or deny the goal, then the character is ACTIVE.

Joe - I agree with everything you said with one exception.

Characters should always be aware of their goal, but unaware of their need.