Passive Main Characters

I'll be very honest: I loathe and detest passive characters.

It's the reason why I was supposedly the only one in my English Literature class who hated The Great Gatsby. It's OK to have unenthusiastic protagonists, or even reluctant protagonists, but if they're like Nick and they DO NOTHING then I get massively frustrated.

That said, I think 'doormat' protagonists (as you put it) are different. Celie from 'The Color Purple' could be classed as this and I loved that book. I suppose it's because she does become empowered later in the novel and she did take action in trying to look after her little sister, etc. She was a victim of circumstances and it felt very real.

So I think there's a difference between 'passive' and 'doormat.'
That's just my opinion.

They need to do something. Whether or not they're made to do things by their own volition or not is up to you.
If you've a character who refuses to move out of his neighbourhood, no matter what, you need the conflict to come into his neighbourhood for things to happen. That can seem really forced if it's done badly.

There's no absolutes in writing, though. It can be done. It probably has been done. Give it a go.

Sometimes things do happen to people, or characters. They do, because of their passivity, fall into a predicament - or a well. Not every character can be a tough-speaking, take-charge kind of guy or girl (or man or woman.)

Frankly I get tired of characters where the MC is the misunderstood one in a world of stupids; or they are the only one with an artistic soul or who sees the world the way it really is; or they are outspoken and unafraid in a world of simpler, quieter folk.

There is room in literature for all kinds of characters, the meek, mild and gentle; or the rough and tumble save-the-day type. Good literature employs a wide variety of types. The point is always to make it interesting.

Vella said:

So, I've decided to tap into the AbsoluteWrite hive mind for this one - what do you guys think about passive/doormat protagonists? Have you ever read any you liked? What tricks did the author use to make them still likeable and interesting to read?

Click to expand...

I've come across one or two where I kept reading because the story was interesting despite the passive, helpless or wandering-along-doing-nothing-in-particular main character. That's one or two out of thousands of books, so I know this type of character doesn't work for me. The only way the author can make this work is to come up with an intriguing twist, great worldbuilding, fascinating style, etc.

Basically, give me plenty of cake to make up for the cardboard I have to eat.

I hear a lot of advice about how the protagonist must want something, take an active role in the plot, have a goal. But I'm wondering if there's room for a less proactive protagonist - one who still wants things, but who is stopped from getting those things by their preference for not rocking the boat, a tendency to go with the flow.

Click to expand...

Depends on how it's done.

If I'm presented with a character who wants something, but who doesn't want to make the effort required to get that thing, then what reason do I have to read more about that character? If the author can come up with a compelling enough reason, something which will overcome my annoyance with such a protagonist, that could work.

Like, if she desperately wants a man but is too afraid to bridge a gap between them, she may be passive when it comes to relationships. But if she's active and smart and good at her work, that's better (provided work and relationships are just as important in the story).

On the other hand, if the protagonist is passive about everything and basically just drifts along refusing to make efforts in any direction, I'm not likely to be interested.

ETA : Just to clarify, I don't see "passive" and "meek/gentle" as the same thing. Melanie in Gone with the Wind is a quiet, gentle, self-effacing woman. But her first line of spoken dialogue is polite disagreement with a man on a topic they're discussing. In other words, she knows her own mind. She's able to stand up for herself, which she does multiple times in the novel. She's not passive.

Animad345 said:

I'll be very honest: I loathe and detest passive characters.

It's the reason why I was supposedly the only one in my English Literature class who hated The Great Gatsby. It's OK to have unenthusiastic protagonists, or even reluctant protagonists, but if they're like Nick and they DO NOTHING then I get massively frustrated.

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that you were the only one who hated the Great Gatsby. The other people were probably just afraid to admit it.

And I think it's actually an interesting case. Nick isn't the protagonist. He's a non-protagonist narrator

rwm4768 said:

I find it hard to believe that you were the only one who hated the Great Gatsby. The other people were probably just afraid to admit it.

And I think it's actually an interesting case. Nick isn't the protagonist. He's a non-protagonist narrator

Click to expand...

Actually, my two friends hated it with me initially, then they ended up 'liking it' (in other words, they didn't want people to think that they weren't intelligent enough to enjoy classics. Big misconception, obviously; you shouldn't like a novel because you're supposed to.)

I see your point, but I still don't think it worked. I would have been happier if the narrator was the author, rather than a bland character I found out very little about.

I think it works in the case of a narrator who isn't the protagonist. But that's hard to do.

Beyond that, does this sound interesting to you? The main character lays there and takes everything given. The situation doesn't change. The end.

The core of it all is change. Either external or internal, something has to change. And generally, the protagonist has to be responsible for that change, otherwise it's not satisfying at all and typically it' s handled as or at least seen as a deus ex machina.

Now again, that change can be internal. The passive character could still be passive in the end, but what has changed is some way they now cope with their situation. They could have found the strength to endure, they could have died inside and don't care anymore.

If I could use an example. Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai. The story is about a drunken, destitute but highly skilled post-civil war soldier who is hired by the Japanese government to teach them how to fight as modern soldiers. Cruise's character is captured by the enemy, the last remaining samurai the Japanese are trying to exterminate. Cruise is taken in and learns the ways of the Samurai. All the samurai are killed in a climactic battle, but Cruise survives, and he has learned how to live with himself in the end. Yet he is not responsible for what happens with the army or the samurai, he is merely along for the ride.

This is important because while there is the character arc of him going from lost to found, the story is really about the samurai's leader. By his character being an outsider, we get to learn as he learns about the samurai culture, about the leader as a character, and see him interacting with the leader, who helps him. It's all merely framed by the experiences of Cruise's character. In the greater story of the samurai, Cruise is passive, and yet he still has changed by the end of the movie.

Sometimes I wonder how much of this is a western thing?

The protagonist in Never Let Me Go is heartbreakingly passive. The story wouldn't have worked had she not been.

Haruki Murakami often writes passive protagonists. Things just sort of...happen to his characters. And I love love love his stories and his writing.

AndreaGS said:

Sometimes I wonder how much of this is a western thing?

The protagonist in Never Let Me Go is heartbreakingly passive. The story wouldn't have worked had she not been.

Haruki Murakami often writes passive protagonists. Things just sort of...happen to his characters. And I love love love his stories and his writing.

Click to expand...

It is definitely a Western thing I think.

I love passive characters.

I'm actually fine with passive characters, as long as they're still interesting and the story happening to them is interesting. In one of my epic fantasies, one of the POV characters is deliberately a passive character. He has goals like surviving and running from his problems, but he kind of goes along with things because he doesn't really know what he wants.

Passive characters can be a problem come query time. In the query, it seems people always want to see characters out there doing everything. I personally don't mind the inciting event being something that happens to a passive character, which then forces the character to become less passive.

Lots of people can't stand Gatsby... I've just put American Gods down (despite being a huge Gaiman fan) because I found Shadow so passive it killed the tension in the book for me. On the other hand, Richard from Neverwhere is also fairly passive, but worked well for me.

So, like everyone, it's about how well you write it.

kuwisdelu said:

It is definitely a Western thing I think.

I love passive characters.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And contrary to others in here--oddly enough--The great Gatsby is one of my favorites, lol. It just all depends on the book. I may get annoyed with a passive character, but as long as they serve a purpose, even if just to provide narrative, and the rest of the story is interesting--I'll read on.

I never read "The Great Gatsby". We were not required to read it in school and it never appealed to me.

I agree that if one has a passive main character, something should be done that makes the person take action somehow, somewhere along the line - like going from a fragile person to someone that can handle a tough situation, for example.

If the story depends on the main (or one of them) being passive/a doormat for it to be logical and to develop them and the other characters more, it can work. On the flip side, if there isn't any change and the story doesn't require a character like that as a main, it will be flat in my opinion.

I've read books with passive/doormat types as a main too, and only a few appealed to me, probably because they changed over time or were active in making changes and helping others around them. The ones who didn't evolve or do much made me yawn and I admit I didn't finish reading the story. It was too darn boring!

rwm4768 said:

I'm actually fine with passive characters, as long as they're still interesting and the story happening to them is interesting. In one of my epic fantasies, one of the POV characters is deliberately a passive character. He has goals like surviving and running from his problems, but he kind of goes along with things because he doesn't really know what he wants.

Passive characters can be a problem come query time. In the query, it seems people always want to see characters out there doing everything. I personally don't mind the inciting event being something that happens to a passive character, which then forces the character to become less passive.

Click to expand...

When it's a problem in QLH, though, it is usually because the character doesn't ever seem to do anything to move the story along.

It's been a long time since I read Slaughterhouse Five but iirc, that MC was fairly passive throughout. However, it was all the other elements that made it so brilliant, and the very point was his overall fatalism.

In some fantasy and sci-fi settings it an probably work so long as the protagonist still has some kind of overall goal (getting home, or trying to maintain some semblance of normalcy).

After all, if they aren't doing anything in the story, why is it even about them, other than that they are somehow speshul?

ETA:

Springs2 said:

Lots of people can't stand Gatsby... I've just put American Gods down (despite being a huge Gaiman fan) because I found Shadow so passive it killed the tension in the book for me. On the other hand, Richard from Neverwhere is also fairly passive, but worked well for me.

So, like everyone, it's about how well you write it.

Click to expand...

Never read American Gods, but I agree Richard in Neverwhere was fairly passive. However, he was responsible for the inciting incident - after all if he'd done what Sarah had told him and ignored 'Door' when she was lying on the pavement, then later refused to help her, he wouldn't have wound up underground to begin with.

Is it really a Western thing? It's not that I want to argue about this, but 'quiet' novels, slow stories and books that take a long time to get going are fine by me as long as they are well-written and interesting. It's just that I can't bring myself to care about a character who refuses to do anything to help themselves. It doesn't mean that they have to be bold and brash... they just need to do something. Otherwise, why should I bother reading about them?

Be careful with doormats. For me a doormat whose situation 1) cannot be left, and 2) is a continual, no-win situation would be just depressing and frustrating and I'd stop reading. And if the character can avoid the conflict by simply leaving but doesn't, I would spend the entire time saying "Just get out of there." Too many RL situations are inescapable downward spirals, and I just don't want to read that.

But a character who is an observer could be interesting.

I'm also reminded of Dante's Inferno. If I'm remembering correctly, there's no real Conflict; it's just an unending series of descriptions (and the occasional discussion with a famous damned soul). But, I would not advise to do such a thing, as a story that's merely a treadmill of scenery (even one that goes through Hell) is going to dissatisfy a lot.

The problem with passive characters is that they tend to exist in novels (and especially short stories) that are without much plot, and the ending is usually really bad because a passive character can't make a choice, which is usually how stories end or at least climax.

And it's not that you can't write a novel without much of a plot. If you're a good enough prose-writer (Saul Bellow comes to mind), then you can make it work. But it seems to me that novelists who write passive characters are making things unnecessarily difficult on themselves.

cmi0616 said:

The problem with passive characters is that they tend to exist in novels (and especially short stories) that are without much plot, and the ending is usually really bad because a passive character can't make a choice, which is usually how stories end or at least climax.

And it's not that you can't write a novel without much of a plot. If you're a good enough prose-writer (Saul Bellow comes to mind), then you can make it work. But it seems to me that novelists who write passive characters are making things unnecessarily difficult on themselves.

Click to expand...

I do think that's usually the case, but a passive MC can work very well, if the writer knows how to force him into action.

"Unnecessarily difficult" is one of those things that matters only if you shy away from writing the really tough stories. I can always write an easy story with easy characters, but I like to experiment, and sometimes this means writing an extremely difficult story.

It also, I think, depends on what you mean by "MC". I've read stories where the character who was considered the MC did nothing but observe. It worked because the writers made sure others took up the action, and there was never a dull moment.

But I do agree that a passive MC all too often means a story without a plot, though I think Saul Bellow's stories have plenty of plot. Quiet, character driven plot, but still plot.

Springs2 said:

Lots of people can't stand Gatsby... I've just put American Gods down (despite being a huge Gaiman fan) because I found Shadow so passive it killed the tension in the book for me. On the other hand, Richard from Neverwhere is also fairly passive, but worked well for me.

So, like everyone, it's about how well you write it.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I felt the opposite on Gaiman. American Gods worked for me. Neverwhere didn't. Shows how subjective things are.

cmi0616 said:

But it seems to me that novelists who write passive characters are making things unnecessarily difficult on themselves.

Click to expand...

Nah, we're just writing the kinds of stories we find more interesting.

Another way I think of it is a passivity scale:

1. Character has no wants, needs, dreams, hopes or ambitions. This never changes and the character does nothing.

2. As before. Character exists, but does little else of significance until another character or the plot acts on him. However, the character himself doesn't change - he remains passive to the end.

3. Character wants something, but does not make any effort to achieve this.

4. Character wants something, makes an effort to achieve this, fails and gives up for good, retreating into passivity.

5. Character wants something, makes an effort to achieve this, fails but keeps trying.

#5 is probably not a passive character. He might be someone like Willy Loman, who's a failure but who has big dreams and continually makes efforts, no matter how misguided, to achieve these. Every other character, though, would fit my definition of passive.

I habitually write pretty passive characters, but they are forced into situations where they eventually have to do something.

One of my favorite passive/meek characters ever is Milton from the movie Office Space, and that's solely because he spends the entire movie just taking everything heaped upon him, and he finally snaps in the end and takes action. His action may have been a bit extreme, but it's a comedy, so I can't complain too much.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I'm reading something and the protagonist is passive, I'm going to expect to him to finally do something about the situation he's allowed himself to fall into in the end. If they don't, I'm going to leave the work feeling unsatisfied.

Jamesaritchie said:

But I do agree that a passive MC all too often means a story without a plot, though I think Saul Bellow's stories have plenty of plot. Quiet, character driven plot, but still plot.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe Saul Bellow wasn't the greatest example, but when I think of something like Herzog--there's really only a few "events" that occur throughout the span of 200+ pages, and Herzog simply lets things happen to him ("If I'm losing my mind, that's alright with me").

The pages are filled mostly with impotent internal struggle, but because Bellow was such a gifted prose-writer, Herzog is (in my opinion, anyway), a pleasure to read. But most people can't write like Bellow.

And I'm not saying that people shouldn't pursue passive protagonists. If you want to do it, by all means go ahead and do it. All I'm saying is, more likely than not, at the end of your first draft (and I speak from personal experience here), it's going to dawn on you that the thing is not working, and the reason it's not working is because your character makes no decisions.